2003 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 6-23-2003 

# B al l a r do v . C omm S o c i al S ec ur it y P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-4124

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 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 no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" B al l a r do v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 440. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/440* The Hon. Cynthi a Holcomb Hall, Ci rcuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for t

he Ninth Circ uit, sitting by designation. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 02-4124
LI LLI AN T. BALLARD O, Appellant
v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISS IONE R OF SO CIA L SEC URI TY.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civ. No. 01-cv-00622) Distri ct Court J udge: Hon. JoelA. Pisano Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

June 17, 2003 Bef ore: ALITO, ROTH, and HALL, * Circuit Judges . (Opinion Fi led: J une 20, 2003)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT

HA LL , Circuit

Judge :-2-

Lill ian T. Bal lardo appe als t he dist rict court’ s order a ffirmi ng the fi nal deci sion of the Comm issioner of Social Securit y. Ball ardo filed an applicati on for disabilit y benefits, alle ging an onset

date of June 30, 1994. The Commissi oner granted benefit s to Ball ardo as of August 8, 1995 after an Administ rati ve Law Judge (ALJ) found a “lack of signi ficant treat ment or fi ndings re flecting si gnific ant res tri ctions ” prior to that date. For the r easons set f orth belo w, w e A FF IRM . W e rev iew an A LJ’ s de cisio n fo r sup por t by su bsta ntial evid enc e. Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin. , 220 F.3 d 11 2, 11 8 (3 d C ir. 20 00) (citin g 42 U.S .C. § 405(g)). Substantial e vidence i s defined a s “such evi dence as a r easonable mind might accept as adequate. ” Id . (internal citations omitted). Ballar do argues that theALJ erred by fail ing to ar ticul ate the basis for his decisi on that Ballardo’s im pairmen t is not equal in seve rity to any statutorily li sted impairm ent. In Bu rnett , we reve rsed and re mand ed an A LJ’s decision that stated merely that the claima nt’s “imp airme nt failed to equ al the lev el of se verity of a ny disab ling co ndition conta ined in Appendix 1, Subpart

P of Social Sec urity Regulations No. 4.” Id . Such a c onclusory statement does not

sati sfy the subst antial evide nce standard because i t provi des the reviewing c ourt wit

h no indication of whether the ALJ adequatelyconsidered all probati ve evid enc e. Id . In the i nstant

case, t he ALJ stated onl y that “the clai mant is s everel y i mpaired by disc degene rati on of the l umbar spine, stat us post two surgerie s, which i mpairment does1 Ballardo d id present seve ral medical rep orts regarding the existence of a severe

impa irmen t begin ning in mid -199 5. W hile the AL J argu ably erred in failing to spec ifically com pare th ese rep orts to th e listed im pairm ents, B allardo wa s ultima tely aw arded bene fits for th is time p eriod a nd p resum ably doe s not se ek rem and o n this ground. -3- not meet or

equal the medical c riteria of a lis ted impai rment. ” This concl usorystatement closel y r esembles t

he statement rej ected as insuffi cient in Bu rnett . However, a cl aimant bears the burden of produci ng evidence t hat her i mpairment i s equival ent to a lis ted imp airm ent, id . at

120 n.2, and equival ence to a l ist ed impairment must be determined on the basis of m edical finding s “suppo rted by medically acceptab le clinical and laborato ry techni ques.” 20 C. F.R. § 404. 1526(a), (b). Ballar do presented essentiall y no medic al evidence of a s evere i mpairment prior t o August 8, 1995. 1 The only medical evi dence of Ballar do’s condi tion prior t o August 8, 1995 i s Dr. Douglas Bradl ey’ s report , which references Ballardo’s su rgery and notes tha t approxim ately six weeks af ter her first surgery Ballar do was “much improved,” ready to begin an exercise pr ogram, and capabl e of returning to s chool. Ballar do also testi fied t o her degree of impairment during t he rele vant time period. A cl aimant’ s own testi mony, however, is not evidence s upported by “medicall y acc eptabl e cli nicaland laboratorydiagnostic methods. ” 20 C .F.R . § 40 4.15 26. Bec ause Balla rdo d id no t mee t her bu rden of p rodu ction, th e A LJ w as no t require d to arti culat e specif

ic rea sons that

Ballar do’s impai rment was not equal in s everit y t o any of the statut orilylisted impairments. Balla rdo a lso arg ues th at the A LJ’s d eterm ination that she could perfo rm the full-4-

range of sedentary work prior to August 8, 1995 vi olate d the Cotter doc trine . See Cotter v. Ha rris , 642 F.2d 700, 705 (3d Cir. 1981) (hol ding that an ALJ must provide “not only an exp re ss io n of

th e ev id enc e s /h e co nsi dered wh ic h su ppo rt s the res ul t, but al so s ome indica tion of the ev idenc e that w as rejec ted.”). B allardo argu es that th e A LJ im prop erly igno red ev idenc e that sh e und erw ent ba ck su rgery on July 21, 1 994 , and s ubse quen tly continue d to experi ence a vari etyof problems, includi ng an inabi lit y t o sit for more than fifte en m inu tes a t a tim e an d a n eed for hea vy pa in m edic ation and a w alke r. The A LJ acknow ledged that Ballardo underwent surgery i n 1994. The A LJ also noted Ball ardo’s testi mony regarding her i nabili ty to si t and her ne ed to use a wal ker, but discr edite d these compl aints because the onlymedical reports relevant to t hat ti me period indicated “that the c laimant had good im provem ent until an A ugust 19 95 exa cerbation.” In additi on, the ALJ observed that Ballar do’s only

medical records between her July21, 1994 surgery and the August 1995 exa cerbation were from rout ine post -surgery fol low-up sessi ons, and di d not refl ect “si gnific ant fi ndings or l imit ations .” The ALJ’s deci sion does not run afoulof the Cotter doctri ne because i t cle arlyindicates t hat evi dence probative of a pre -A ugu st 8, 1 995 disa bility w as n ot cr edite d, as opp ose d to sim ply ign ore d. As a thir d ground for r eversal , Ball ardo argues that t he ALJ gave insuffi cient weight to her s ubjective complai nts of pai n. Testimony from a claimant regardi ng pain and other symp tom s is en titled to “g reat w eigh t” w hen sup por ted b y com pete nt m edic al ev iden ce. Schaudeck v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin. , 181 F.3d 429, 433 (3d Cir. 1999). As not ed-5-

abov e, the m edica l evide nce d id no t corro bora te Ba llardo’s testimo ny. Thu s, the A LJ d id not err by di sregar ding Ball ardo’s s ubjective complai nts of pai n. Fina lly, Ballardo argu es that th e A LJ er red b y determ ining th e ons et date of d isability with out the aid of a me dical e xper t. Ballard o con tends that Walton v. Halter , 243 F.3d 703 (3d Cir. 2001), r equires an ALJ to obtai n medical testi mony in ca ses of ambiguous onset dates. In Walton , we h eld tha t Soc ial Sec urity Reg ulation 83-2 0 req uires a n A LJ to call a medical advi sor in c ases i nvolving a s lowly progress ive impai rment with an ambiguous
ons et da te alle ged to h ave occ urre d fa r in th e pa st. Walton , 243 F .3d at 7 09; see also S. S. R. 83-20 ( “[h]ow long the diseas e may be determined t o have existed at a di sabli ng level of
seve rity depen ds on an inf orm ed jud gm ent of the fa cts in the particu lar case . This ju dgm ent, how eve r, mu st ha ve a legit ima te m edic al ba sis.”) . Walton is dis ting uish able fro m th e ins tant c ase in se ver al ke y resp ects . Firs t, Walton specifi call y addressed manic de pressi ve disor der, a c onditi on which is bot h progress ive and diff icult to d iagn osis . Walton , 243 F.3d at 705-08. I n additi on, the ALJ’s task of determi ning the ons et dat e of the cl aimant’ s condition was complic ated i n Walton by the fact that t he all eged onset date was more than twentyyear s prior to the he aring, and medical
reco rds w ere s par se a nd c onf lictin g. Id . In the in stant ca se, the a vailab le me dical re ports supporte d the ALJ’s concl usion that Ball ardo’s c onditi on after her fir st sur gery was “much imp rov ed,” and that B allar do d id n ot ag ain e xpe rien ce d isab ling pain unt il A ugu st 8, 1 995 . These report s provide d a legi timat e medical ba sis for the ALJ to make an informed-6-

jud gm ent a s to th e on set d ate o f B allar do’ s dis abili ty. For the r easons di scussed above , the ALJ’s decisi on was supported by substant ial evide nce. W e A FFIR M the jud gm ent of the distric t court.TO THE CLERK OF THE CO URT: Kindlyfilethe fore going Not Precede ntialOpinion.

/s/ Cynthia Ho lcom b H all Circuit Judge