2010 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 5-11-2010 

# Gu s t a vo Ley va 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 . 08-3252

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_2010

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 2010 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
" G us t a vo L ey va v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1369. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1369NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 3252 G U S T A V O I. L E Y V A , A p p e llan t.

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. 3- 07- cv- 00553) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. J os eph A . G r eena w ay Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on M ay13, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges and FI SC H E R *, D i s t r i ctJ udge ( O pi ni on fi l ed M ay11, 2010)

*J udge N or a B arr yFi s cher , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe W es t ern D i s t r i ctof P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .2 O P I N I O N RO TH , C i r cui tJ udge: G us t avo Leyva appe al s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on aff i r m i ng the C om m i s s i onerof Soci al Secur i t y ’ s deni al of hi s appl i cat i on fordi s abi l i t yi ns ur ance and su p p lem e n tal s e c u rityin c o m e (S S I) b e n e f its. B e c a u se th e C o m m iss io n e r’s d e c isio n to d e n yb e n e f

its w a s b a s e d o n s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , w e w ill a f f ir m . A s t he fa ct s ar e w el l know n t o t he part i es , w e gi ve onl ya br i ef de s cr i pt i on of the re le v a n t is s u e s a n d p ro c e d u ra l p o s tu re o f th e c a s e . L eyva appl i ed fordi s abi l i t yi ns ur ance and SSI benef i t s on February4, 2004, al l egi ng di s abi l i t ys i nce A ugus t31, 2003, due t o an ankl e fr actur e, depr es s i on, l um bar d is c d is e a s e , a h is to ry o f h yp e rt e n s io n a n d tu b e rc u lo s is , a b d o m in a l p a in , a n d g a lls to n e s . A h e a ri n g w a s h e ld b e f o re a n a d m in is tr a tiv e la w ju d g e (A L J ) o n N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 . T he A L J found thatr es i dual pai n fr om hi s ankl e fr actur e cons t i tut ed a “ s ever e” im p a irm e n t b u t u lti m a telyc o n c lu d e d th a t L e yv a ’s a g e , ed u c a tio n , an d v o c a tio n a lly r el evantexper i ence , vi ew ed i n conj unct i on w i t h t he M edi cal - V ocat i onal G ui del i nes i n t he appl i cabl e r egul at i ons , di r ect ed a c oncl us i on of “notdi s abl ed” f orpurpos es of the Soci al Secur i t yA ct . T he A L J t hus deni ed hi s appl i cat i on forbenef i t s . L eyva s oughtr evi ew fr om t he A ppeal s C ounci l , w hi ch deni ed hi s r eques t . T hus , the A L J ’ s deci s i on i s the C o m m is s io n e r’ s f

in a l d e c is io n . Mat thew s v. Apf el , 2 3 9 F .3 d 5 8 9 , 5 9 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).3

O n F e b ru a ry2 , 2 0 0 7 , L e yv a f iled su it ch a llen g in g th e C o m m iss io n e r’s ru lin g in t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey . O n M ay28, 2008, the D i s t r i ctC our taff

i r m ed the C om m i s s i oner ’ s fi nal rul i ng. L eyva fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l on J ul y25, 2008. T hi s C our thas j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and r evi ew s the C o m m is s io n e r’ s d e n ia l o f b e n e f its f o r s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . See M cC r ea v. C om m ’ rof Soc. Sec. , 370 F. 3d 357, 359 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . “Subs t ant i al evi dence ‘ does notm ean a l ar ge o r c o n sid e ra b le a m o u n t o f e v id e n c e , b u t ra th e r su c h re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s a re a so n a b le m i nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ’ ” H ar tr anf tv. Apf el , 181 F. 3d 358, 360 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng P i er ce v . U nder w ood , 4 8 7 U . S . 5 5 2 , 5 6 5 (19 8 8 )). T he r egul at i ons s etfor t h a fi ve- s t ep pr oces s t o det erm i ne i f a c l ai m anti s di s abl ed a n d , thu s, e lig ib le f

o r b e n e f its. F irst, th e A L J m u st d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e c laim a n t is engage d i n s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi t y . 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520( a) ( i ) , ( b) . I f s o, the c la im a n t is n o t d is a b le d . I d. T he A L J found thatL eyva had notengage d i n s ubs t ant i al g a in f u l a c tiv ity sin c e A u g u s t 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 . A ts t ep tw o, t he A L J m us tdet erm i ne w hetherthe cl ai m ants uffe r s fr om a “s ever e” i m pai rm ent , defi ned as one w hi ch “s i gni fi cant l yl i m i t s [a c l ai m ant ’ s ] phy s i cal orm ent al abi l i t yt o do bas i c w or k act i vi t i es . ” I d. § 404. 1520( a) ( i i ) , ( c) . O nl ya s ever e i m pai r m ent can r endera cl ai m ant“di s abl ed. ” I d. T he A L J foun d thatthe “resi du al s of [L eyva’s]T he D i s t r i ctC our tvi ew ed thi s s t at ementas a typogr aphi cal err orbas ed on a l at er 1 s t at ementbyt he A L J t hatL eyva’ s r es i dual s of a f r actur ed ankl e w er e notse v e re . B o th t he D i s t r i ctC our tand the A L J , how ever , w enton t o anal y ze s t eps thr ee thr ough fi ve for L ey v a’s a n k le i n

jury ; w e the ref

o re interp ret th e A L J’s d ec isi o n to b e tha t th e a n k le i n jury w as “s ever e” pur s uantt o s t ep tw o. 4 f ra c tu re d a n k le” c o n stitu ted a “ se v e re ” im p a irm e n t. 1 A ts t ep thr ee, t he A L J compar es the medi cal evi dence of the cl ai m ant ’ s “s ever e” im p a ir m e n t( s ) w ith th o s e im p a ir m e n ts p re s u m e d s e v e re e n o u g h to p re c lu d e g a in f u l w o rk . I d. § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (a )(iii). If th e c laim a n t’s im p a irm e n t is sim ilar to o n e listed , the c laim a n t is el i gi bl e forbenef

i t s . T he A L J found thatL eyva’ s ankl e i nj urydi d notr eac h t he l evel of severi t yof those l i st ed in the regu l at i on s. St ep fourr equi r es t he A L J t o cons i derw hetherthe cl ai m antr et ai ns the r es i dual f u n c tio n a l c a p a c ity to p e rf o rm h is p a s t r e le v a n t w o rk . I d. § 404. 1520( a) ( i v) . I f s o, the i nqui r yends and the cl ai m anti s notel i gi bl e forbenef i t s . T he A L J det erm i ned thatL eyva co u ld n o t r eturn to h is prev iou s em p loym en t as a m ainten an ce w o rke r. Fi nal l y , ats t ep fi ve, t he bur den of pr oduct i on s w i t ches t o t he C om m i s s i oner , w ho m us tdemonstr at e thatt her e ar e otherj obs exi s t i ng i n s i gni fi cantnum ber s i n t he nat i onal e c o n o m yth a t th e c la im a n t c a n p e rf o rm . I d. § § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 0 ( a ) ( i v ) , 4 0 4 . 1 5 6 0 ( c ) ( 1 ) . Th e ALJ lo o k e d to th e m e d ica l v o c a tio n a l g u id e lin e s, w h ich c o n tain a se rie s o f ru les th a t d ire c t a fi ndi ng of “di s abl ed” or“notdi s abl ed” de pendi ng on a cl ai m ant ’ s age, educa t i on, v o c a t i o n a l p r o f

i l e , a n d r e s i d u a l f

u n c t i o n a l c a p a c i t y . Ba s e d o n th o s e g u i d e l i n e s , th e ALJ d e ter m in e d th a t L e yv a c o u ld p e rf o rm “ se d e n tar yw o rk ,” d e f in e d a s “ w o rk w h ich isL eyva al s o t akes i s s ue w i t h t he fa ctthathe w as l at erdeemed t o be di s abl ed as of 2 M ar ch 31, 2006, one dayaft ert he A L J i s s ued hi s deni al deci s i on forthe i ns t ant appl i cat i on. L eyva’ s s ubs equentdi s abi l i t yappl i cat i on and adj udi cat i on, how ever , ar e not p a rt o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e re c o rd a n d a re , th u s , o u ts id e th e s c o p e o f o u r r e v ie w . See Szub ak v. Sec’

y of H ealth & Hum an Servs. , 745 F. 2d 831, 833 ( 3d C i r . 1984) ( new ev iden ce m u st r elate to p eriod fo r w h ich b en ef it s w ere d en ied). 5 gener al l yper form ed w hi l e s i t t i ng and neve rr equi r es l i ft i ng i n exce s s of 10 pounds . ” L eyva w as, t hu s, deem ed “n ot di sabl ed” u nd er the regu l at i on s. L e yv a c o n ten d s th a t th e C o m m iss io n e r e rre d b y(1 ) f a ili n g to f

in d th a t h is depr es s i on and l um bardi s c di s eas e ar e s ever e i m pai r m ent s and ( 2) us i ng the medi cal vo cat i on al gu i deli nes t o d enydis abil i t yatst ep five. W e rej ectbo t h co ntent i on s. 2 W i t h r es pectt o L eyva’ s depr es s i on, the A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence . T hough L eyva w as di agnos ed w i t h “maj ordepr es s i ve di s or der , ” the di agnos i ng doct oral s o obs erved thathe di d nothave s ui ci dal orhom i ci dal t endenc i es and w as “abl e t o fol l ow i ns t ruct i ons and the t opi c of c onver s at i on. ” D oct or s w ho had p re v io u slye x a m in e d L e yv a in d ica ted th a t h is c o n c e n tra tio n w a s u n im p a ire d , h e w a s f u lly or i ent ed, and he pr es ent ed as onl ym i l dl yanxi ous . L eyva admi t t ed thathe t ook car e of h is p e rso n a l ap p e a ra n c e a n d h y g ien e a n d th a t h e w a s a b le to tra v e l b yp u b lic t r ans por t at i on. I n s hor t , nei t herL eyva’ s t es t i m onynorhi s m edi cal r ecor ds underm i ne the A L J ’ s concl us i on t hatL eyva’ s depr es s i on w as nots ever e. Li k e wi s e , t h e o n l yme d i c a l e v i d e n c e o f Le yv a ’ s a l l e g e d b a c k i mp a i r me n twa s a CT s c a n o f h is c h e s t, d a te d A u g u s t 2 0 0 5 , th a t in d ic a te s “ p o s s ib le ” c e n tr a l d is c h e rn ia tio n .6

Pr i orC T s cans had notfound anycentr al di s c herni at i on, and no fol l ow - up exami nat i on w as conduct ed t o confi r m t he “pos s i bl e” di agnos i s . Fur t her , L eyva has neverr ece i ved t r eatm entforhi s al l eged ba ck i m pai r m ent . U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , the A L J di d not e rr in c o n c lu d in g th a t L e yv a d id n o t h a v e a se v e re b a c k im p a irm e n t. Fi nal l y , ourr evi ew of the r ecor d convi nces us thatthe A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on ats t ep fi ve w as noterr or , norw as t he A L J ’ s us e of the medi cal - vocat i onal gui del i nes i m pr oper in th is c o n tex t. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.