2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-28-2007 

# W ann am ak e r v . C omm S o c i al S ec urity P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-4255

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " W a nn am ake r v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1422. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1422T h e H o n o ra b le J o h n R . G ib so n , S e n io r C irc u it Ju d g e , U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * f o r th e E ig h th C irc u it. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 4255 ANN I E J . W ANN AM AKER, A p p e llan t,

v. CO M M I S S I ONE R O F S OC I AL S E CU RI T Y, A ppel l ee. O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 06201) D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M ar t i ni Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J une 30, 2006 B efore: B A R R Y , V A N A N T W E R P E N , and JO H N R . G IB S O N , C i rcui tJudg es. * ( Fi l ed M ar ch 28, 2007)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT-2-

J O H N R . G I B SO N , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge. A nni e W annamakerappea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or deraff i r m i ng t he C om m i s s i oner of Soci al Secur i t y ’ s det erm i nat i on deny i ng herD i s abi l i t yI ns ur ance B enef i t s . She ar gues t hatt he admi ni s t r at i ve dec i s i on fi ndi ng herabl e t o per for m herpas tr el evantw or k w as not b a s e d o n s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f r e c o r d . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. W a n n a m a k e r w a s 5 9 y e a rs o ld a n d w o rk in g a s a n a d m in istra tiv e a ss ista n t at a m us i c companyw hen s he al l egedl ybeca m e di s abl ed. She had hel d t he j ob fors even y e a rs, a n d im m e d iate lyb e f o re th a t sh e w o rk e d f

o r o n e y e a r a s a n a c c o u n ts re c e iv a b le c ler k a t a b e e p e r c o m p a n y . W a n n a m a k e r c laim e d th a t sh e w a s u n a b le to w o rk d u e to p a in in h e r b a c k , n e c k , le f

t s h o u ld e r, a n d le f

t h a n d th a t b e c a m e d is a b lin g a s o f A u g u s t 4 , 2 0 0 0 . H e r a p p lic a tio n f

o r b e n e f its w a s d e n ie d , a s w a s h e r r e q u e s t f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n . W annamakerr eques t ed and r ece i ved a he ar i ng byan admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge. A tt hat hear i ng, t he C om m i s s i onerel i ci t ed expe r tm edi cal t es t i m onyfr om an or t hopedi c s ur geon, and W annamakert es t i fi ed and s ubm i t t ed document arym edi cal evi dence i n s uppor tof her appl i cat i on. T he admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge i s s ued a de ci s i on t hatW annamakerw as not e n t i t l e d t o d i s a b i l i t yb e n e f i t s , a n d t h e Ap p e a l s Co u n c i l d e n i e d h e rr e q u e s tf o rr e v i e w, m aki ng t he admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge’ s deci s i on t he fi nal agenc ydeci s i on. W annamaker fi l ed an a ct i on i n D i s t r i ctC our ts eeki ng r evi ew of the fi nal deci s i on, and the D i s t r i ct C our taff i r m ed the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ovi ded a thor ough narr at i ve of W annamaker ’ s r el evant m edi cal hi s t or yas di s cus s ed and c ons i der ed byt he admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge, and w e nee d-3-

notr epea ti ti n i t s ent i r ety . I n 1996, W annamakerw as di agnos ed w i t h a herni at ed di s c at L 5- S1. T w o y ear s l at er , an M R I r evea l ed thats he had s uffe r ed s om e dege ner at i on i n t he L 3- L 4, L 4- L 5, and L5-S1 di s cs . She r ece i ved phy s i cal t her apyi n 2000 for cervi cal / l um bardi s c/herni at i on/ l um bars yndr om e, butupon herdi s char ge i n J ul ys he w as abl e t o per form al l of heroccupa t i onal dut i es and al l act i vi t i es of dai l yl i vi ng. She underw ents ur geryi n J une 2000 t o r el i eve i m pi ngements yndr om e of the l efts houl derand l eftcarpal tunnel s yndr om e, and hers ur geon cl ear ed hert o r etur n t o w or k as of J ul y31, 2000. W annamakerw as al s o exami ned bycons ul t at i ve phy s i ci ans . I n A ugus t2000, s he compl ai ned of pos t - s ur gi cal l eft - arm num bnes s and bac k pai n. I n a M ar ch 2001 cons ul t at i ve phy s i cal exami nat i on, s he had l i m i t ed r ange of m ot i on i n herl um bars pi ne a n d l e f ts h o u l d e r , wa s u n a b l e t o wa l k o n h e rt o e s o rs t a n d o n h e rr i g h tl e g , s h o we d s o me m inim al crep itu s o f h er left k n ee , h ad a p o sit ive im p ing em en t si g n o f h er left sh o u lder, and s how ed evi dence of l eftr ot at orcuff t endi nos i s and pos s i bl e os t eoart hr i t i s of the k n e e s. In a n o th e r e x a m in a tio n th a t m o n th , W a n n a m a k e r d e m o n stra ted a n a n talg ic g a it and had di ffi cul t yr i s i ng fr om a s eat ed pos i t i on. T he gr as pi ng s t r ength i n herl efthand w as di m i ni s hed, as w as t he mot ors t r ength i n herl eftupperextr emi t y . T he exa m i ni ng d o c to r o p in e d th a t sh e w a s a b le to sit, sta n d , w a lk , h a n d le o b jec ts, h e a r, sp e a k , an d tra v e l, buts he s houl d notl i ftorcarr yheavyobj ect s . T es t s conduct ed i n O ct ober2001 s how ed th a t sh e still ex p e rie n c e d lef t-sid e c a rp a l tu n n e l syn d ro m e th a t w a s n o t v e ryp ro m in e n t. A tt he hea r i ng, W annamakercompl ai ned of s ever e bac k pai n and s t i ffne s s i n her-4-

l efthand. She di d nott hi nk hercarpal tunnel s ur geryhad s i gni fi cant l yhel ped her , but in ste a d h e r le f

t h a n d sy m p to m s w e re g e tti n g w o rse . S h e tes tifie d th a t sh e w a s u n a b le to l i ftt hi ngs w i t h t hathand and w as unabl e t o br i ng herl eftarm backw ar d fol l ow i ng her s houl ders ur gery . T he or t hopedi c s ur geon t es t i fi ed thatW annamaker ’ s s pi nal fi ndi ngs sh o w e d n o rm a l d e g e n e ra tio n f o r h e r a g e a n d th a t th e re w e re n o n e u ro lo g ica l f in d in g s to corr el at e w i t h di s c herni at i on. H e al s o t es t i fi ed thatt her e w as no anat om i cal r eas on for heri nabi l i t yt o us e herl efts houl derort o m ani pul at e the fi nger s of herl efthand. T h e a d m inistrati v e law jud g e c o n clud ed that W an n am ak er h ad a se v ere i m pai rm entw hi ch r equi r ed thathe cont i nue thr ough t he r emai ni ng s t eps of the s equent i al a n a ly sis . H e c o n sid e re d w h e th e r W a n n a m a k e r re tain e d th e re sid u a l f u n c tio n a l ca p a c ityto per form t he r equi r ement s of herpas tr el evantw or k beca us e the medi cal evi dence di d not s uppor ta fi ndi ng t hatanyof W annamaker ’ s i m pai r m ent s m etorm edi cal l yequal ed a l i s t ed i m pai r m ent . T he admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge conc l uded thatW annamakerw as c a p a b le o f

p e rf o rm in g h e r p a s t r e le v a n t w o rk , a n d c o n s e q u e n tly d e n ie d h e r a p p lic a tio n . H i s deci s i on ul t i m at el ybeca m e the fi nal agenc ydet erm i nat i on. T h e sta n d a rd o f

o u r re v iew is to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e re is s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e in t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d t o s uppor tt he C om m i s s i oner ’ s fi ndi ngs . Sy kes v. A pfel , 228 F . 3d 25 9, 26 2 (3d C i r. 20 00 ). S ub st anti al evidence m eans "such rel evan tevidence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. " Ri char ds on v. Per al es , 402 U . S. 389, 401 ( 1971) ( quot i ng C ons ol . E di s on C o. v. N L R B , 305 U . S. 197, 2 2 9 ( 1 9 3 8 ) ) . T h e Di s t r i c tCo u r ta p p r o p r i a t e l ya p p l i e d t h i s s a me s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w.-5-

T he Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on has s etfor t h a s equent i al fi ve- s t ep pr oces s for eval uat i ng di s abi l i t ycl ai m s , 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520, and the admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge appl i ed the fi r s tfours t eps . H e found that : 1) W annamakerhad notengage d i n s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi t ys i nce the al l eged ons etof herdi s abi l i t y ; 2) s he has an i m pai r m entor combi nat i on of i m pai r m ent s cons i der ed " s ever e" under20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520( c) ; 3) her m edi cal l ydet erm i nabl e i m pai r m ent s do notm eetorm edi cal l yequal one of the l i s t ed i m pai rm ent s i n 20 C . F. R . §§ 404. 1520( d) and 404, Subpt . P, A pp. 1; and 4) herr es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yperm i t s hert o per for m l i ghtw or k and does notpr ecl ude herfr om p e rf o rm in g h e r p a st re lev a n t w o rk a s a n a d m in istra tiv e a ss ista n t o r a c c o u n ts re c e iv a b le cl erk. T he admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge di d notneed t o cons i dert he fi fth eval uat i ve s t ep beca us e he f

ound t hatW annamakercoul d per for m herpas tr el evantw or k. O urr evi ew of the admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge’ s deci s i on i s l i m i t ed t o hi s fi ndi ngs unders t ep four , as W annamakerconce ded bel ow t hats he does notm eetone of the l i s t ed i m pai rm ent s . W e ar e mi ndful t hatW annamakerbear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng t hats he l acks t he r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yt o per for m herpas tr el evantw or k. Sy kes , 228 F. 3d at263. W annamakerar gues t hatt he dec i s i on w as notbas ed on s ubs t ant i al evi dence of re c o rd b e c a u se o f

tw o e rro rs. F irst, sh e a ss e rts th a t th e a d m in istra tiv e law ju d g e f a iled to engage i n t he pr ot ocol foreval uat i ng pai n t hati s m andat ed by20 C . F. R . § 404. 1529. T he r egul at i on r equi r es cons i der at i on of " al l of the evi dence pr es ent ed, i ncl udi ng i nfor m at i on abouty ourpr i orw or k r ecor d, y ours t at ement s abouty ours ym pt om s , evi dence s ubm i t t ed-6-

byy ourt r eat i ng, exami ni ng orcons ul t i ng phy s i ci an . . . and obs ervat i ons byour em p loy ee s an d o ther p erso n s. " 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 9 (c)(3). Stan d ing alon e, a claim an t’ s s t at ement s aboutpai n w i l l notes t abl i s h di s abi l i t y . I ns t ead, "ther e mustbe medi cal s i gns a n d lab o ra to ryf

in d in g s w h ich sh o w th a t y o u h a v e a m e d ica l im p a irm e n t(s) w h ich c o u ld r eas onabl ybe expe ct ed t o pr oduce the pai n orot hers ym pt om s al l eged a nd w hi ch, w hen co n side red w ith all o f th e o ther e v iden ce . . . w o u ld lead to a c o n clus ion that y o u are d isab led." 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 9 (a). T h e a d m in istra tiv e law ju d g e c o m p re h e n siv e lylisted th e e v id e n c e re latin g to W annamaker ’ s pai n ( as w el l as herot hers ym pt om s ) , i ncl udi ng hert es t i m ony , t he document arym edi cal evi dence fr om hert r eat i ng and cons ul t i ng phy s i ci ans and phy s i cal thera p ist s, an d the testi m o n yo f a n ind ep en d en t m ed ical ex p ert. A p p ly ing the re g u lat o ry fr amew or k t o t he evi dence , t he admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge conc l uded thatW annamaker r et ai ns t he r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yt o per for m l i ghtw or k. H e expl ai ned that , w hi l e he cons i der ed hers ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s of pai n and the phy s i cal l i m i t s caus ed bypai n, her compl ai nt s w er e nots uppor t ed byt he w ei ghtof the medi cal evi dence . H e ci t ed as an exampl e herabi l i t yt o al l evi at e herback, neck, and hand pa i n w i t h an over - t he- count er m edi ci ne pr oduct . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatthe admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge adhe r ed t o t he r egul at or yr equi r ement s i n hi s eval uat i on of W annamaker ’ s pai n and thats ubs t ant i al evi dence exi s t s t o s uppor tt he age ncyconcl us i on. Second, W annamakerar gues t hatt he admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge err ed i n fi ndi ng t hat s he w as capa bl e of r etur ni ng t o herpas tr el evantw or k beca us e he di d notcompar e her-7-

l i m i t at i ons t o t he func t i onal demands of he rpas tj obs as an admi ni s t r at i ve as s i s t antand an acc ount s r ece i vabl e cl erk. T he age ncydeci s i on r evea l s ot herw i s e. T he admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge appl i ed the corr ectl aw , begi nni ng w i t h t he def i ni t i on of the t erm "r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t y " a s "the mostan i ndi vi dual can s t i l l do aft ercons i der i ng t he ef fec t s of ph y si cal and / or m ental l i m i t at i on s that affectt he ab i l i t yt o p erform w ork-r el at ed tas ks. " See 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1545. H e as s es s ed heras bei ng capa bl e of s i t t i ng, s t andi ng, and/ or w al ki ng fora t ot al of s i x hour s dur i ng t he cour s e of a n ei ght - hourw or k day , and of l i ft i ng o r c a rr y in g o b

je c ts w e ig h in g u p to tw e n ty p o u n d s o c c a s io n a lly a n d te n p o u n d s f re q u e n tly. H e re c o g n iz e d th a t W a n n a m a k e r w a s re s tr ic te d in o v e rh e a d re a c h in g w ith h e r l e f t a rm . A l t hough W annamakerhad an " exempl aryw or k hi s t or y , chr oni cl i ng a l ong and s t eady car eerof empl oym entendea vor s , " he rw or k hi s t or ydoes nots uppor ta fi ndi ng t hats he coul d notr etur n t o herj ob beca us e hert r eat i ng or t hopedi c doct orhad author i zed he r r etur n t o w or k l es s t han one w eek be for e s he s t opped w or ki ng. A f ter c o n c lu d in g th a t W a n n a m a k e r re tain e d th e re sid u a l f u n c tio n a l ca p a c ityto p e rf o rm lig h t w o rk , the a d m in istra tiv e law ju d g e lo o k e d sp e c if ica llya t h e r a b ili tyto perform anyof h er pastrel evan tw ork, defined as "usuall y. . . perform ed w i t hin the las t 15 y ear s or15 y ear s pr i ort o t he dat e thatdi s abi l i t ym us tbe es t abl i s hed. I n addi t i on, t he w or k m us thave l as t ed l ong enough fort he cl ai m antt o l earn t o do t he j ob and meett he d e f in iti o n o f su b sta n tial g a in f

u l ac tiv ity ." S e e 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 6 5 . L o o k in g to W annamaker ’ s t es t i m ony , t he admi ni s t r at i ve l aw j udge found thats he had de s cr i bed her per form ance i n herl as tt w o j obs as s edent ary . Sedent aryw or k has few err equi r ement s onw eigh t t o b e li fted , stan d ing , an d w alkin g than d o es li g h t w o rk, 20 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 6 7 (a),

( b) , and l es s t han the evi dence r evea l ed thatW annamakeri s capa bl e of pe r for m i ng. T he agenc yconcl us i on t hatW annamakerw as abl e t o per for m herpas tr el evantw or k w as t her efor e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . W e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D istric t C o u rt.

8