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 4-12-2010 

# Al an Fra se r 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 . 09-3279

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 authori 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 " Al an F r as e r v

. C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1530. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1530NOT 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. 09- 3279 A L A N F R A S E R , A ppel l ant

v. M I CH AEL J . ASTRU E, CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY

(P u rsua n t t o F . R . A . P . 4 3 (c)) APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C i vi l N o. 06- cv- 04886) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 8, 2010 B efor e: M cK E E , B A R R Y and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 12, 2010)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A l an Fr as erappea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or deraff i r m i ng the deni al bythe A d m in istra tiv e L a w Ju d g e (“ A L J” ) o f h is a p p lica tio n f

o r S o c ial S e c u rityD isa b ili ty-2-

b e n e f i t s . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I . Backg r ound . W e as s um e the part i es ’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the fa ctual and pr ocedur al hi s t ory , w hi ch w e des cr i be onl ybr i efl y . Fr as eri s a s i xty - one- y ear - ol d m an w i th a hi gh s chool educa t i on and expe r i ence w or ki ng as s i l verw r apper , pai nt erand pai nt i ng s upervi s or . H e fi l ed for di s abi l i tyi ns ur ance benef i t s i n February2002, cl ai m i ng di s abi l i tys i nce A ugus t30, 2001 d u e to irritab le b o w e l syn d ro m e , ca rp a l tu n n e l syn d ro m e , a c a rd iac p ro b lem , rh e u m a to id arthr i t i s i n hi s knees and ankl es , a di s l ocat ed t oe, l um barr adi cul opathy , aff ect i ve di s or der , and anxi ety - r el at ed di s or der . T he A L J deni ed hi s i ni t i al cl ai m on J anuary30, 2003. W hi l e thatdeci s i on w as on appea l , Fr as erfi l ed a s econd appl i cat i on, w hi ch a n o th e r A L J g ra n ted o n O c to b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 . O n F e b ru a ry9 , 2 0 0 5 , the A p p e a ls C o u n c il re o p e n e d th e f

a v o ra b le d e c isio n , co n so lid a ted th e a p p lica tio n s, a n d re m a n d e d th e c a se to the or i gi nal A L J . O n M ay18, 2005, the A L J i s s ued a de ci s i on i n w hi ch he f ound that , as o f Ja n u a ry1 , 2 0 0 3 , F ra se r’s a f f e c tiv e d iso rd e r, an x iety -re late d d iso rd e r, an d p e rso n a lity d iso rd e r c o m b in e d to e q u a l th e re q u ire m e n ts o f L istin g 1 2 .0 8 , rela tin g to p e rso n a lity d iso rd e r. T h e A L J a lso f o u n d th a t p rio r to th a t d a te, F ra se r w a s n o t d isa b led b e c a u se h is condi t i ons di d notm eetorequal the r equi r ement s of an i m pai r m entl i s t ed i n the r egul at i ons , and bec aus e he ha d t he r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyt o per form a s i gni fi cant ra n g e o f lig h t w o rk . T h e A p p e a ls C o u n c il d e n ie d F ra s e r's r e q u e s t f o r r e v ie w o f

th e A L J ’s d e c is io n .-3-

Fr as erthen fi l ed thi s act i on i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, ar gui ng thatthe A L J w as bi as ed aga i ns thi m , and thatthe A L J ’ s deci s i on w as nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s agr eed, and af fi r m ed the dec i s i on deny i ng benef i t s . Fr as ert i m el yappea l ed.

I I . D i s cus s i on . O u r re v iew is lim ited to d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e re w a s s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e to s uppor tthe C om m i s s i oner ' s deci s i on t o denybenef i t s . 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) . “Subs t ant i al evi dence has been de fi ned as m or e than a mer e s ci nt i l l a. I tm eans s uch r el evantevi dence 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. ” R eef erv. B arnh art , 326 F. 3d 376, 379 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T he C om m i s s i oner ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ctar e bi ndi ng i f theyar e s uppor t ed by s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . Knepp v. Apf el , 2 0 4 F . 3 d 7 8 , 8 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt had j ur i s di ct i on under42 U . S. C . § 405( g) . W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. F ra se r is d isa b led f

o r p u rp o se s o f

th e S o c ial S e c u rityA c t (“ S S A ” ) o n lyif h is

“ p h y sic a l o r m e n tal im p a irm e n t o r im p a irm e n ts a re o f su c h se v e rityth a t h e is n o t o n ly u n ab le t o d o h is prev iou s w o rk b u t can n o t, co n side ri n g h is ag e, ed u ca ti o n , an d w o rk exper i ence , engage i n anyot herki nd of s ubs t ant i al gai nful w or k w hi ch exi s t s i n the nati on al econ om y. . . . ” 42 U . S . C . § 4 23 (d) (2) (A ). In m aking t his determ i nati on , A L Js m ustperform a fi ve-st ep, sequen t i al analy si s. 20 C . F . R . § 4 04 . 15 20 . T he A L J m ust-4-

r evi ew : ( 1) the cl ai m ant ' s curr entw or k act i vi ty ; ( 2) the medi cal s ever i tyand dur at i on of the cl ai m ant ' s i m pai r m ent s ; ( 3) w hetherthe cl ai m ant ’ s i m pai r m ent s m eetorequal the r equi r ement s of an i m pai r m entl i s t ed i n the r egul at i ons ; ( 4) w hetherthe cl ai m anthas t he r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyt o r eturn t o pas tr el evantw or k; and ( 5) i f the cl ai m antcannot re tu rn to p a st re lev a n t w o rk , w h e th e r h e o r sh e c a n “ m a k e a n a d ju stm e n t to o th e r w o rk ” in the nat i onal economy . 20 C . F. R . 404. 1520( a) ( 4) ( i ) - ( v) . T he cl ai m antbear s the bur den of p ro o f o n s te p s o n e th ro u g h f

o u r. P oul os v. C om m ’ rof Soc. Sec. , 4 7 4 F . 3 d 8 8 , 9 2 (3d C ir . 2007) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he C om m i s s i onerbear s the bur den of pr ovi ng ats t ep fi ve that the cl ai m anti s capa bl e of pe r form i ng a j ob thatexi s t s i n s i gni fi cantnum ber s i n the n a tio n a l e c o n o m y . Id . T he A L J ’ s M ay18, 2005 deci s i on fol l ow ed thi s pr ocedur e i n det erm i ni ng that Fr as erm etthe def

i ni t i on of di s abi l i tyas of J anuary1, 2003. T he A L J cons i der ed the ev iden ce w ith g rea t care a n d d eterm ined that F rase r’s m en tal im p airm en ts be ca m e se v ere en o u g h to m ee t L ist ing 1 2 . 0 8 as o f Ja n u ary1 , 2 0 0 3 (an d n o t bef o re). A p art fro m F rase r’s m ent al i m pai r m ent s , the A L J al s o cons i der ed the evi dence of hi s phy s i cal pr obl ems and det erm i ned thatpr i ort o J anuary1, 2003, he w as notdi s abl ed. A l though Fr as erhad bil at eral carpal tun nel s ynd rom e and ost eoarthri t i s befo re J anu ary1, 20 03 , these condi t i ons w er e nots ever e enough t o m eetorm edi cal l yequal the r equi r ement s of any i m pai rm entl i s t ed i n t he r egul at i ons . T he A L J al s o found that , t o the ext entther e w as any ev iden ce that F rase r w as a ff li cted w ith the o ther c o n d it ion s o f w h ich h e c o m p lai n ed , there-5-

w a s a la c k o f

e v id e n c e th a t th o s e c o n d itio n s c a u s e d h im a n ys e ri o u s f u n c tio n a l p ro b le m s . T he A L J concl uded thatal though Fr as er ' s condi t i ons pr i ort o J anuary1, 2003 pr event ed hi m fr om r eturni ng t o hi s pas tr el evantw or k, he r et ai ned the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyt o per form a var i etyof j obs thatexi s t ed i n s i gni fi cantnum ber s i n the nat i onal economy . A ccor di ngl y , the A L J deni ed Fr as er ’ s cl ai m thathe w as di s abl ed w i thi n the m e a n in g o f

th e S S A p ri o r t o J a n u a ry 1 , 2 0 0 3 . Fr as ernow s eeks benef i t s forthe s i xt een- m onth per i od fr om A ugus t30, 2001, w hen he c l ai m s hi s di s abi l i t i es began, t o J anuary1, 2003, the dat e of di s abi l i tyons etas det erm i ned bythe A L J . H e ar gues , fi r s t , thatthe A L J w as bi as ed aga i ns thi m and deni ed h im d u e b e n e f

its b e c a u se o f

th is b ias . A s th e D istric t C o u rt p o in ted o u t, th is a rg u m e n t is under cutbythe fa ctthatthe A L J di d gr antbenef i t s ( forthe per i od begi nni ng J anuary1, 2003) . Fr as erci t es the A L J ’ s ques t i ons aboutFr as er ’ s cr i m i nal backgr ound— “tran sm itti n g ch il d p o rno g rap h y ” (A p p . at 55 9 )— as e stab li sh ing the A L J’s b ias. It appea r s , how ever , thati tw as Fr as erand hi s l aw y erw ho r ai s ed Fr as er ’ s cr i m i nal backgr ound i n t he fi r s tpl ace . M or eover , al though s om e of the A L J ’ s l anguage can be i nt erpr et ed as s ugges t i ng thatthe A L J di s appr oved of Fr as er ’ s cr i m e, the A L J ’ s deci s i on i s s uppor t ed bythe evi dence . I ndeed, w e not e, the dat e chos en bythe A L J as the ons et p o in t o f F ra s e r’ s d is a b ility— J a n u a ry 1 , 2 0 0 3

— is a rg u a b ly ra th e r g e n e ro u s . Fr as eral s o ci t es , as evi dence of bi as , the A L J ’ s demeanordur i ng the hea r i ng, cl ai m i ng thatthe A L J “s napped” atFr as er ’ s l aw y erbeca us e of the l aw y er ’ s “att i tude”-6-

dur i ng an off

- the- r ecor d di s cus s i on. E ven as s um i ng, how ever , thatthe A L J w as r ather brus que, ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatther e w as anyconfl i ctof i nt er es tori nabi l i tyt o r ender a f a irju d g m e n t. See Li t eky v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 1 0 U .S . 5 4 0 , 5 5 1 (1 9 9 4 ). F rase r ne x t argu es th at th e A L J im p rop erlyreli ed o n the o p inion o f m ed ical ex p ert D r . R i char d Saul w ho, Fr as ercl ai m s , w as i m pr oper l ym ot i vat ed bya des i r e t o pl eas e the A L J . T o b e s u r e , D r . S a u l o p i n e d a b o u tth e d i s a b i l i ty o n s e td a t e o n l y after the A L J had s ett l ed on J anuary1, 2003, es s ent i al l yr at i fy i ng the A L J ’ s appoi nt ed dat e. T hatopi ni on, h o w e v e r, w a s w e ll su p p o rte d b yth e e v id e n c e , inc lu d in g th e f a c t th a t F ra se r f

a iled to s at i s fyhi s bur den of pr ovi ng thathi s i m pai r m ent s m etorequal ed al l the r equi r ement s of a lis te d im p a ir m e n t b e f

o re J a n u a ry 1 , 2 0 0 3 . Fr as ernextatt acks the out come i t s el f, ar gui ng thatthe A L J ’ s deci s i on w as not bas ed on s ubs t ant i al evi dence , and ci t i ng cert ai n s t at ement s m ade bythe A L J dur i ng t he hear i ng, part i cul ar l ythe s t at ementthatthe A L J chos e J anuary1, 2003 beca us e “a tthat tim e , [F ra se r] b e c a m e 5 5 f o r S o c ial S e c u rityp u rp o se s.” (A . at 5 6 2 .) T h e re w a s a m p le evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hatFr as erw as notdi s abl ed bef or e J anuary1, 2003, evi dence t hat i ncl uded the opi ni ons of D r . Saul and D r . J ohn G avaz zy . A s forthe s t at ement , i ti s true that i tseem s t o run af

ou l of the regul at i on s’ m and at e t hat the A L J not “consi der [F ras er’ s] v o c a tio n a l f

a c to rs o f a g e , ed u c a tio n , an d w o rk e x p e rie n c e ” in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r h is c o n d itio n s e q u a le d o n e o f th e c o n d itio n s lis te d in th e S S A , s ee 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 6 (c ). I ti s cl ear , how ever , thatthe r efe r ence t o the coi nci dence of the dat es does notunderm i neA s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, as of M ar ch 2002, Fr as erhi m s el f admi t t ed thathe l i ved 1 al one and di d notdepend on a ny one el s e forcar e, dr ove a c ar , us ed publ i c tr ans por t at i on a lo n e , p a id h is o w n b ill s, a n d w e n t g ro c e rysh o p p in g . H e g o t alo n g “ O K ” w ith p e o p le in author i tyand r es ponded w el l t o t hei rcr i t i ci s m . H e had no tr oubl e under s t andi ng in s tru c tio n s a n d c a rr y in g th e m o u t, a n d w a s a b le to s ta rt a n d c o m p le te p roje c ts . F o r e x a m p le, D r. M c C lain f o u n d , in J u ly2 0 0 2 , tha t F ra se r’s m e n tal im p a irm e n ts d id 2 n o tm e e tl i s t i n g l e v e l s e v e r i ty. -7- th e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e o n w h ic h th e A L J ’s o p in io n re s ts . F ra se r c o n ten d s, a s w e ll, th a t th e A L J im p ro p e rlyd isre g a rd e d th e o p in io n o f h is tr eat i ng ps y chol ogi s t , D r . W i l l i am M cC l ai n. D r . M cC l ai n’ s opi ni on w as contr adi ct ed by otherevi dence , i ncl udi ng Fr as er ’ s ow n r es pons es t o a ques t i onnai r e abouthi s day - t o- day c a p a b ili ties p rio r to Ja n u a ry1 , 2 0 0 3 . M o re o v e r, th e A L J n o ted th a t D r. M c C lain 1 s ubm i t t ed conf

l i ct i ng as s es s m ent s of the func t i onal eff ectof Fr as er ’ s m ent al i m pai rm ent s , and di d nots ubm i tanys uppor t i ng tr eatm entm at er i al s . B eca us e he ga ve a

2 v ali d rea so n fo r his d ec isi o n , the A L J w as f ree to cre d itD r. S au l’ s o p inion o v er D r. M c C la in ’s w h e re th e tw o c o n f lic te d . D i azv. C om m ’ rof Soc. Sec. , 577 F. 3d 500, 505- 06 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). I I I . C onc l us i on. W e w ill a f

f ir m th e o rd e r o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .