2008 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 10-6-2008 

# M organ v . C omm S o c i al S ecurity 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 . 07-2657

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 anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

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 ll anova 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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M organ v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 408. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/408NOT 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. 07- 2657 J ODY A. M OR GAN, A ppel l ant

v. CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY

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 . N o. 06- cv- 01659) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. St anl eyR . C hes l er

Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on J une 26, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: O ct ober6, 2008 )

O P I N I O N2

RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: J odyM or gan appe al s fr om a j udgm entbythe D i s t r i ctC our taff i r m i ng the deni al of herappl i cat i on forSoci al Secur i t yD i s abi l i t ybenef i t s . Fi ndi ng thatthe dec i s i on of the A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge ( A L J ) i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , w e w i l l aff i r m t he ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I . BA CKGROUND B e c a u se w e w rite p rim a rilyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly re v ie w th e f

a c ts a n d th e p ro c e e d in g s b e lo w . P rio r to 2 0 0 3 , M o rg a n w o rk e d a s a h o u se c lea n e r. M o rg a n sto p p e d w o rk in g in M a rc h 2 0 0 3 , alle g e d lyb e c a u se o f a p sy c h o lo g ica l co n d iti o n th a t ca u se d h e r to talk to her s el f w hi l e w or ki ng, be fe ar ful of other s , have pa ni c att acks , and s uffe rfr om depr es s i on. She t es t i fi ed thats he had pa ni c att acks atw or k t hatw oul d r equi r e hert o s t op and foc us befor e s he coul d cont i nue w i t h t he t as k athand. M or gan furt hert es t i fi ed that sh e e x p e rie n c e d b a c k p a in d u rin g th e se p a n ic a ttac k s. T h is p ro b lem a lleg e d lym a k e s it d if f ic u lt f o r h e r t o c o n c e n tr a te o n a n yth in g . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatM or gan w as eval uat ed byphy s i ci ans on s ever al o c c a sio n s. O n e p sy c h iatris t ev a lu a ted h e r a b ili tyto re late to c o -w o rk e rs a n d d e a l w ith w or k s t r es s as poorornon- exi s t ent . H ow ever , the otherexami ner s eac h eval uat ed M o rga n ’s ca p ab il it ies as su ff ici en t t o p erf

o rm h er job as a h o u sec lean er. M or gan fi l ed an a ppl i cat i on forD I B and SSI benef i t s on J ul y24, 2003. T he Soci al3

Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on deni ed herappl i cat i on on D ece m ber8, 2003. M or gan fi l ed a r eques tforr econs i der at i on on J anuary9, 2004. T he deni al w as aff i r m ed on A pr i l 20, 2 0 0 4 . M o rg a n re q u e s te d a h e a ri n g , a n d s h e a p p e a re d b e f o re a n A L J o n A u g u s t 8 , 2 0 0 5 . T h e A L J is su e d a d e c isio n o n N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , fin d in g th a t M o rg a n w a s n o t elig ib le forbenef i t s . M or gan fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch w as deni ed on A pr i l 4, 2007. M or gan appe al ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on under 4 2 U . S . C . § 4 0 5 (g). W e h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the d ec isi o n o f th e D istri ct C o u rt pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e mayr evi ew t he fa ctual fi ndi ngs of the C om m i s s i oneronl yt o det erm i ne w hethert he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d cont ai ns s ubs t ant i al evi dence fors uch fi ndi ngs . 42 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ); Syke s v. Apf el , 2 2 8 F .3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). S u b sta n tial e v id e n c e is evi dence t hat“a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ” R i char ds on v. P er al es , 402 U . S. 389, 401 ( 1971) ( quot i ng C ons ol i dat ed Edis on C o. v. NLRB , 3 0 5 U .S . 1 9 7 , 2 2 9 (1 9 3 8 )) . O u r r e v ie w o f le g a l is s u e s is p le n a ry. Syke s , 228 F. 3d at262. E l i gi bi l i t yfordi s abi l i t ybenef i t s i s det erm i ned ac cor di ng t o a fi ve- s t ep s equent i al a n a lysis . See 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520. Fi r s t , the C om m i s s i onercons i der s w hetherthe claim an t i s cu rren tl yen g ag ed in su b stan ti al ga inf u l acti v ity . 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 0 (b). I f4

s he i s not , t he C om m i s s i onert hen r eac hes the s econd s t ep and c ons i der s w hetherthe c laim a n t h a s a “ se v e re im p a irm e n t.” 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (c ). If th e im p a irm e n t is s ever e, t he C om m i s s i oneratt he thi r d s t ep det erm i nes w hetherthe cl ai m anthas an i m pai rm entorcombi nat i on of i m pai r m ent s w hi ch i s l i s t ed i n A ppendi x 1 of the r egul at i ons , ori s equal t o a l i s t ed i m pai r m ent . 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520( d) . I f the cl ai m ant d o e s n o t h a v e a lis te d im p a ir m e n t, th e C o m m is s io n e r p ro c e e d s to s te p f o u r. 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 0 (e). A t th e f o u rth step , the C o m m issi o n er d eterm ines w h ethe r, d esp it e the sev ere i m pai rm ent , t he cl ai m anthas t he r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yt o per form herpas tr el evant w o rk . 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (e ). If so , sh e w ill b e f

o u n d n o t d isa b led a n d th e a n a ly sis need notpr ocee d t o t he fi fth s t ep. O nl ythe fourt h s t ep i s ati s s ue her e. M o rg a n a rg u e s o n a p p e a l th a t th e A L J e rre d in f a ili n g to g iv e c o n tro lli n g w e ig h t to t he eva l uat i on byD r . H us s ai n t hats he had poororno abi l i t yt o r el at e t o co- w or ker s or deal w i t h w ork stres s. W h e n c o n f

ro n ted w ith c o n f

lictin g e v id e n c e , an A L J “ m a yc h o o se w h o m to c re d it butcannotr ej ectevi dence forno r eas on orforthe w r ong r eas on. ” P l um m erv. Apf el , 186 F. 3d 422, 429 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . A n A L J i s notr equi r ed t o gi ve contr ol l i ng w ei ghtt o a tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on, butm ay“af for d a tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on m or e orl es s w ei ghtdependi ng upon t he ext entt o w hi ch s uppor t i ng expl anat i ons ar e pr ovi ded. ” Id .5

I n t hi s cas e, t he A L J expl ai ned the evi dence thatl ed hert o concl ude thatM or gan h a d s u f f i c i e n tr e s i d u a l wor k c a p a c i tyt o p e r f o r m t h e j o b o f

a h o u s e c l e a n e r . Th e ALJ di s cus s ed the eva l uat i ons of M or gan’ s tr eat i ng ps y chi atr i s t , the t es t i m onyof an ind ep en d en t m ed ical ex p ert, an d the p rog ress n o tes o f M o rga n ’s so cial w o rke r. In addi t i on, t he A L J s peci fi cal l ynot ed thats he gave l i t t l e w ei ghtt o t he as s es s m entM or gan now emphasi zes beca us e i tw as bas ed on M or gan’ s non- compl i ance w i t h hertr eatm ent pr ogr am ra t hert han ment al s t atus and bec aus e i tw as i ncons i s t entw i t h t he tr eat i ng ps y chi atr i s t ’ s pr ogr es s not es . T he arr ayof m edi cal opi ni ons i n t he r ecor d pr ovi des s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng t he A L J ’ s deci s i on, and the A L J ’ s thor ough anal y s i s of th e e v id e n c e w a s s u f

f icie n t to su p p o rt h e r ju d g m e n t. I I I . CO NC L US I ON F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e d e c isio n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.