FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 31, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12325 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 2 3 5 4 - C V- T - 2 7 - E AJ M A R I E O R E S T A N O , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C O M M I S S I O N E R O F S O C I A L S E C U R I T Y A D M I N I S T R A T I O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 31, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M a r i e O r e s t a no appe a l s the or de ra f f i rm i ng the C om m i s s i one r ’ s de ni a l of2

d is ab ility in s u r a n c e b e n e f its , 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 ( g ) , a n dS u p p le m e n ta l S e c u r ity Incom e, 42 U . S . C . § 1 38 3(c) (3). O n app ea l , O re st ano argues thatsubst ant i al evi dence does notsupp ortthe A dm i ni stra t i ve L aw Judg e’ s ( “ A L J” ) f i nd i ng that she w as no tdi sabl ed, and thatthe A L J e rr ed i n rel yi ng on the t es t i m on y of a v o c a tio n a l e x p e r t. W e r ev iew a s o cial se cu rity ca se to d eter m in e w h eth erth e C o m m issio n er ’s deci si on i s s up po rt ed by subst ant i al evi dence and w hether the corre ctl egal s ta n d a r d s w e r e ap p lie d . L e w is v . C a lla h a n , 1 2 5 F .3 d 1 4 3 6 , 1 4 3 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . W e “ m a y notde c i de the f a c t s a ne w , r e w e i gh the e vi de nc e , ors ubs t i tut e our ju d g m e n t f

o rth a t o f th e S e c r e ta ry .” M a r tin v . S u lliv a n , 8 9 4 F .2 d 1 5 2 0 , 1 5 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) . A c l a i m a ntbe a r s the bur de n t o pr ove tha ts he i s di s abl e d, w i thi n the m e a n in g o f

4 2 U .S .C . § 4 2 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . J o n e s v . A p f e l, 1 9 0 F .3 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 2 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 19 99 ). W here , as i n thi s c as e, a c l ai m anti s noti nv ol ved i n a subst ant i al gai nful w ork act i vi ty a nd has e st abl i shed a s ever e i m pai rm entthatprevent s her f r o m p e r f o rm in g h e rp a s t r e le v a n t w o rk , th e b u r d e n s h if ts to th e C o m m is s io n e rto d e mo n s tr a t e th a tth e r e a r e as i g n i f i c a n tn u mb e ro f

j o b s i n th e n a t i o n a l e c o n o my th a t th e c la im a n t c a n p e r f o rm . J o n e s , 1 9 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 8 . T h e A L J m u s t a r tic u la te s pe c i f i c j obs tha tthe c l a i m a nti s abl e t o pe r f orm , a nd thi s f

i ndi ng m us tbe3

s uppor t e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , notm e r e i ntui t i on orc onj e c tur e . S e e A l l e n v. S u lliv a n , 8 8 0 F .2 d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) . H e r e , th e A L J f

o u n d th a t O r e s ta n o w a s c ap ab le o f p e r f o rm in g as ig n if

ic a n t, butnotaf

ul l , r a nge of

s e de nt a ry w ork a s de f

i ne d i n 20 C . F . R . §§ 404. 1567 a nd 4 1 6 .9 6 7 . T h e ju d g e f

o u n d th a t O r e s ta n o ’s “ab ility to p e r f o rm a ll o rs u b s ta n tia lly al l of the re qu i re m ent s of s edent ary w ork w as i m peded b y a dd i t i on al exert i on al and/ or no n-exert i on al l i m i t at i on s. ” T here fore , the t es t i m on y of avo ca t i on al expert w a s us e d “ t o he l p de t e rm i ne w he the rornotthe r e [ w e r e ] as i gni f i c a ntnum be rof j ob s i n the nat i on al ec on om y thatthe cl ai m antcoul d p er form gi ven h erre si du al funct i on al capaci ty a nd other vocat i on al fa ct ors. ” W e f i nd thatthe A L J di d n oterr i n appl y i ng the c orr e c tl e ga l s t a nda r ds a nd tha thi s de c i s i on w a s s uppor t e d by subst ant i al evi dence. A F F I R M E D .