FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 15, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 16 81 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 15 7- CV-WLS-1 ELOIS P. RUSSELL, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us MIC HAEL J. ASTRUE, Co m m is si on er o f So ci al Secu rit y , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Jun e 1 5, 2 00 9) Befo re BI RCH, HULL andKRAVITCH, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Elo is Ru ss el l ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s o rd er af firm in g t he de ci si on of t he So ci al Secu rit y

Adm in is tra ti on to de ny her ap pl ic at io n fo r so ci al sec ur ity di sabi li ty be ne fit s. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we vac at e an d re m an d. BACKGRO UND Fo r ap pr ox im at el y

eig ht eeny ears be fo re s he ap pl ie d fo r so ci al sec ur ity be ne fit s, Ru ss el l wo rk edas adry ket tl e fee de r, li fti ng an d c arrying woo d a nd feed in g wo odin to a ki ln . In M ay 20 04 , Rus se ll ap pl ie d fo r di sabi li ty ben efi ts , al le gi ng th athe r ab il ity

to workwas l im it edby pai n i n t he ne ck , rig htarm , lef t wris t, l eftkn ee, an kl es , andlo wer b ack . She als o a ll eg edsi ckne ss rel at edto he r hi gh bl oo d p res su re an d k idne y st on es . In s ub se qu en t d is ab il ity rep orts , Rus se ll cl ai m edth athe r he artrace d a ndth atsh e ex pe rie nc edpa inan d s well in g i n h er l eft si de , che stpa in , andsev ere p ai n i n t he rig htsi de . Rus se ll fir stass ert edth athe r on se t d at e was Aug us t 2 , 20 03 , bu t l at er am en de d t he on se t d at e to Ju ly 6, 20 04 , he r la stda y

of wo rk . The So ci al Secu rit y

Co m m is si on er d en ie d h er ap pl ic at io n i ni ti al ly andon reco ns id erat io n. Ru ss el l the n re qu es te d a ndrece iv eda he ari ng be fo re an Adm in is tra ti ve Law Ju dg e (the “ ALJ”) . The ALJ d et erm in edth atRu ss el l was no t di sabl ed . The Ap pe al s C ou nc il de ni edrev ie w, m ak in g t he ALJ’s de ci si on th e fin al de ci si on of t he So ci al Secu rit y Co m m is si on er. 2Ru ss el l the n i ni ti at edth e in st an t ci vi l ac ti on purs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g )

se ek in g re vi ew of

th e Co m m is si on er’s d eci si on . The d is tri ctco urt, ad op ti ng th e Rep ort an d R eco m

m en da ti on of t he Mag is tra te Ju dg e, affi rm edth e d eci si on of t he Co m m is si on er. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“ [W] e rev ie w de n ov o t he leg al pri nc ip le s upo n wh ic h t he Co m m is si on er’s de ci si on is ba se d.” Mo or e v . Barn ha rt, 4 05 F.3d12 08 , 12 11 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e rev ie w factua l fi nd in gs of t he Co m m is si on er, h owe ve r, with g reatde fere nc e. Id . W e wil l n otre-wei gh ev id en ce o r subs ti tu te our jud gm en t fo r th atof t he Co m m is si on er, b utin st eadrev ie w th e en ti re re co rdto de te rm in e if th e d eci si on reac he d i s re as on ab le an d s up po rte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Co rn el iu s v . Su ll iv an , 93 6 F .2d11 43 , 11 45 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). Sub st an ti al ev id en ce i s “ su ch rel ev an t ev id en ce as a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ldacce ptas a de qu at e to supp ort a co nc lu si on .” Dou gh ty v. Apfe l, 2 45 F.3d12 74 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (quo ta ti on om itte d) . There m

us t b e “ m or e th ana m ere s ci nt il la ” o f ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he ALJ’s co nc lu si on s. Fal ge v. Ap fel , 15 0 F .3d13 20 , 13 22 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (quo tati on s o m it te d) . W e rev ie w th e d eci si onof t he ALJ as th e Co m m is si on er’s fin al de ci si on wher e, as he re, the ALJ d en ie s b en efi ts an d t he App eal s C ou nc il de ni es rev ie w of the ALJ’s de ci si on . Dou gh ty, 24 5 F .3dat 1 27 8. 3DISCUSS IO N

The cla im an t ca rri es th e b ur de n o f de m on st rat in g t he ex is te nc e o f a di sabi li ty as de fin edby the So ci al Secu rit y Act. Bra dy v. Heck le r, 72 4 F .2d91 4, 91 8 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 4) . Disabi li ty “ is de fin edby 42 U.S.C. § 13 82 c(a) (3 )(A) as in ab il ity ‘ to en ga ge inany

subs ta nt ia l g ai nf

ul act iv ity

by reaso n o f an y

m ed ic al ly de te rm in ab le ph y si cal or m en ta l i m pa irment wh ic h c anbe ex pe ct edto res ul t i n de ath o r whi chha s l as te d o r canbe ex pe ct edto las t fo r a co nt in uo us pe rio d o f no t le ss th an12 m on th s.’” McCr ut er v . Bowe n, 7 91 F.2d15 44 , 15 45 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). The so ci al sec ur ity

reg ul at io ns est ab li sh a fi ve -s te p, “ se qu en ti al ev al ua ti on pr oc es s,” t o e va lu at e d is ab il ity cla im s. Id . at 1 54 6; 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 20 . Firs t, the cl ai m an t m

us t es tabl is h t ha t s he is no lo ng er “ do in g s ub st an ti al ga in fu l ac ti vi ty.” 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 20 (a)( 4) (i) . Seco nd , th e Co m m is si on er co ns id ers th e m ed ic al se ve rit y of t he cla im edim

pa irments ; a c la im an t wi ll be co ns id ereddi sabl edon ly if sh e h as a se ve re m ed ic al ly det erm in ab le im pa irment, o r a co m

bi na ti on of im pa irments . 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 20 (a)( 4) (ii ). Thi rd , th e se ve re i m pa irment m

us t m eetor e qu al on e o f th e li st edim pa irments inApp en di x 1 an d m eetth e dur at io n requi rem en t. 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 16 .92 0( a)(4 )(i ii ). Fou rth , th e Co m m is si on er as se ss es th e cl ai m an t’s re si du al fun ct io na l capa ci ty andco m pares th atcap aci ty to h er p as t rel ev an t wo rk ; i f sh e can st il l p erfo rm he r pa strel ev an t wo rk , th e cl ai m an t i s n ot 4“ di sabl ed .” 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 20 (a)( 4) (iv ). Fin al ly, if t he cla im an t i s fo un d t o b e

un ab le to pe rfo rm

he r pa strel ev an t wo rk , th e Co m m is si on er wi ll ass es s h er res idua l fu nc ti on al cap aci ty andag e, educ at io n, an d wo rkex pe rie nc e to see if s he co ul d p erfo rm

ot he r work; if the cla im an t can m ak e anad jus tm en t t o o th er wo rk , sh e wil l n otbe fou nddi sabl ed . 20 C.F.R. § 41 6.9 20 (a)( 4) (v ). Ru ss el l ar gu es th atth e ALJ erredby (i) fai li ng to co ns id er al l o f he r al le ge d im pa irments inde te rm in in g h er re si du al fun ct io na l capa ci ty, (ii ) erro ne ou sl y reject in g t he op in io n o f anex am in in g p hysic ia n, (i ii ) fai li ng to supp ort p ro pe rly hi s cr ed ib il ity

fin di ng , and(iv ) fi nd in g t ha t Ru ss el l co ul d re tu rnto he r pa st rel ev an t wo rk . W e ad dr es s ea chintu rn . Co ns ider at io n o

f Othe r Imp ai rme nt

s Ru ss el l ar gu es th atth e ALJ d idno t co ns id er fu ll y th e eff ectof h er s ho ul de r an d b ackim

pa irments . She als o a ss ert s tha t the ALJ fai le d t o p ro pe rly acco un t fo r al l o f he r cl ai m edim

pa irments by notco ns id eri ng he r un tre at edhi gh bl oo d pr es su re. As fo r Ru ss el l’s s ho ul de r an d n eckim pa irments , th e ALJ s umm ari zedth e di ag no se s o f th e ex am in in g a ndco ns ul ti ng ph y si ci an s co nc ern in g h er b ackan d ne ckpro bl em s. Th e ALJ co ns id eredRu ss el l’s i m pa irments to be “ de ge ne rat iv e di sc di se as e/ de ge ne rat iv e joi ntdi se as e o f th e cervi cal sp in e wit h m il d t en de rn es s 5atC5 -6 , m il d i m pa irment r ig htsh ou ld er; m in orth or aci c sc ol io si s; m il d i rreg ul ari ty le ft wri st ; an d m il d t o m od erat e lu m ba r le vo sco li os is .” The ALJackno wled ge d th es e im pa irments , bu t co nc lu de d t ha t the “ co m bi ne d e ffec t an d c om

bi na ti on of th es e im pa irments do no t s ig ni fic an tl y li m ithe r ab il ity

to pe rfo rm

ba si s wo rk rel at edact iv it ie s.” Th us , th e ALJ d idno t fa il to co ns id er o r ig no re h er s ho ul de r an d n eckpa in ; h e si m

pl y fou ndth atth ey

di d n otcau se di sabi li ty. Ru ss el l’s ar gu m en ts th atth e ALJ d idno t co ns id er the ful l ef fectof t he se jud gm en ts are m or e in th e m an ne r of di sa gr eem en ts with h is op in io n, ra th er tha n al le ga ti on s tha t the ALJ ap pl ie d t he wron g l eg al st an da rd . Our rev ie w, ho wev er, i s na rro w and“ [w]e m ay

no t d eci de th e fac ts an ew, rewei gh th e ev id en ce, o r subs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t fo r th atof t he [Co m m is si on er]. E ve n i f we fi ndth atth e ev id en ce p rep on de rat es ag ai ns t the [Co m m is si on er’] ’s dec is io n, we m us t af firm if th e d eci si on is supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l ev id en ce.” Bl oo ds worth v. Heck le r, 70 3 F.2 d 1 23 3, 1 23 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 3) . Here, th e Co m m is si on er g av e sp eci fic reas on s why he fel t tha t h er i m

pa irments di d n otris e to th e le ve l o f di sabi li ty, an d we a re pr ecl ud edfro m

re-wei gh in g the ev id en ce an d re ve rs in g t hi s d eci si on . 1 The ALJ revie wed the me dical re cords a nd noted that none of

the x-ray s or other te sts 1 showed “ extreme” or “ acute ” abnor malities. He dete rmined that, although Russell had some abnorma lities, there wa s “no objec tive medical e vidence of any abnorma lity

to cause such limit ations” as we re f

ound by the examining phy sician. Additionally , he re lied on the examining phy sician’s finding s that Russell’s “phy sical examination was unrem arkable ; no atrophy ; coordination and functional use of upper e x tremities and lower extremiti es norm al ; full rang e of 6Ru ss el l’s ar gu m en t tha t the ALJ erre d b y no t co ns id eri ng he r un tre at edhi gh bl oo d p res su re as a se ve re i m pa irment a ls o fa il s. Inhi s o pi ni on , th e ALJ t oo k n ot e of Ru ss el l’s b lo odpre ss ur e rea di ng s as st at edinhe r m ed ic al reco rd s; th os e read in gs ap pe ar t o b e h ig h. Th ere was , ho wev er, n o e vi de nc e th atth e h ig h b lo od pr es su re was cau si ng he r to be un ab le to work . “ [T]he se ve rit y of am ed ic al ly as cert ai ne d d is ab il ity

m us t b e m eas ur edinterm s o f it s ef fectup on ab il ity

to work , an d n otsi m

pl y interm s o f de vi at io n fr om purel y m ed ic al st an da rd s o f bo di ly pe rfec ti on or n orm al ity .” McC ru te r, 79 1 F .2dat 1 54 7; Mo or e, 40 5 F .3dat 1 21 3 n.6 (“ [T]he m ere e xi st en ce o f [] im pa irment[ ] do es no t re ve al th e ex te ntto whi ch [it ] li m it [s ] he r ab il ity

to workor u nd erm in e th e ALJ’s d et erm in at io n i n tha t reg ard .”). In o th er wo rd s, an ab no rm al ity th atdo es no t caus e anim pa irment wi ll no t s up po rt afin di ng of d is ab il ity . Andth e cl ai m an t b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g th ata gi ve n i m

pa irment c au se s h er t o b e d is ab le d. Carn es v. Su ll iv an , 93 6 F .2d 12 15 , 12 18 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). Ru ss el l h as no t i de nt ifi eddo cu m en ta ti on inhe r m ed ic al reco rd s wh ic h d em on st rat es th athe r hi gh bl oo d p res sure caus es he r to be

“ di sabl ed .” Thu s, we co nc lu de th atth e ALJ d idno t err by ign or in g R us se ll ’s un tre at edhi ghbl oo d p res su re as a se ve re i m pa irment.

motion of all joint s, grip and pinch norm al .” (e mphasis in origina l). 7Dis cr edit in g the Opi ni on of th e Exa min in g Ph

ys ic ia n Ru ss el l n ex t ar gu es th atth e ALJ erredby dis cred it in g t he op in io n o f th e ex am in in g p hysic ia n. “ The tes ti m on y of atre at in g p hysic ia n m us t o rd in ari ly be gi ve n s ub st an ti al or c on si de rab le weig htun le ss go odcau se is sh own to th e co nt rary.” MacGreg or

v. Bo wen , 78 6 F .2d10 50 , 10 53 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). It i s, n ot ho wev er, unl awfu l t o d is cred itth e o pi ni onof a n e xa m in in g o r tr eat in g p hysic ia n, so lo ng as t he Co m

m is si on er “ sp eci f[i es ] wha t wei gh t i s g iv ento a tr eat in g ph y si ci an ’s op in io n andan y reas on forgi vi ng itno weig ht. . . .” Id . Here, the ALJ d is cred it edth e o pi ni on of the ex am in in g p hysic ian, Dr. Ba ri, th atRu ss el l was li m it edinwalk in g (n o m or e th anon e quarte r m il e) an d l ift in g (n o m or e th an15 po un ds ) be cau se he fou ndth at“ th ere i s n o o bjec ti ve m ed ic al ev id en ce o f an y

ab no rm al ity

to cau se su chli m it at io ns .” Noton ly didth e ALJ fi nd th atRu ss el l’s o th er m ed ic al reco rd s d idno t s up po rt Dr. Ba ri’s o pi ni onth atRu ss el l was di sabl ed , bu t the ALJ n ot edth atDr. Bari ’s ownex am in at io n o f Ru ss el l co nf li ct edwith h is op in io n b ecau se hi s ex am in at io n re ve al edhe r to be “ no rm al ” in ne arl y all res pe ct s. Acco rd in gl y , th e ALJ h adgo odcau se to de te rm in e th atDr. Bari ’s op in io n s ho ul d b e g iv enli tt le weig ht , andth atm or e wei gh t s ho ul d b e g iv en to hi s p hysic al ex am

fin di ng s an d R

us se ll ’s othe r m ed ic al reco rd s. Be cau se th e

8ALJ art ic ul at edhi s s pe ci fic , cog en t re as on s fo r di sc red it in g t he op in io n o f th e

ex am in in g p hysic ia n, we fi ndno erro r. Th e Cr edib il it

y Fin di ng Ru ss el l al so ass ert s tha t the ALJ erre d i n i gn or in g h er s ub jecti ve co m

pl ai nt s of pa in an d i nabi li ty to wo rk . Rus se ll arg ue s tha t, b ecau se th e ALJ d idno t pr op erl y co ns id er h er o wn t es ti m on y co nc ern in g h er p ai n a ndact iv ity li mit at io ns , he erre d b y

no t as ki ng th e v oc at io na l ex pe rt ahypo th et ic al qu es ti on to eli ci t an op in io n o n wh ethe r th es e co m pl ai nt s g av e ri se to a di sabi li ty. Ru ss el l co nt en ds th atth e ALJ fa il edto di sc us s h er s ta te d a ct iv it ie s o f da il y li vi ng init s o pi ni on , in cl ud in g h er t es ti m on y

th atsh e requi redass is tanc e h an gi ng th e laun dry an d t ha t sh e requi redanho ur

bre akaft er p erfo rm in g a n h ou r of ho us ewo rk . She subm it s th athe r te st im on y

de m on st rat edth athe r da il y act iv it ie s ar e co ns is te ntwith a n in ab il ity to li ft 5 0 p ou nd s o ccas io na ll y an d 2 5 p ou nd s fr eque nt ly, as wou ldbe requi redto do he r pa stwork . Thu s, s he co nt en ds th atth e cas e sh ou ldbe rev ers ed 2 an d re m an de d fo r vo cat io na l ex pe rt t es ti m on y reg ard in g the im

pa ctof h er li mit at io ns onhe r pa strel ev an t wo rk .

The pa rties appe ar to a gree that her prior position as a dry kiln/kettle operator f

its the job 2 description of a dry

kiln operator/he lper a s contained in the U .S. Depar tment of L abor D ictionary of Oc cupational Titles, which involves “ an exertional leve l of medium.” 9“ A cla im an t’s s ub jecti ve co m

pl ai nt s o f pa in can no t i n a ndof t he m se lv es se rv e as co nc lu si ve ev id en ce o f di sabi li ty. The reco rdm us t d oc um en t b y

m ed ic al ly acce pt ab le cli ni cal or l ab or at ory di ag no st ic tec hn ique s the ex is te nc e o f a m ed ic al im pa irment wh ic h c ou ldreas on ab ly be expe ct edto pro du ce the di sabl in g p ai n.” Ch es te r v. B owe n, 7 92 F.2d12 9, 1 32 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). A th ree- pa rt “ pa in st an da rd ” is us edwhen a cl ai m an t at te m pt s t o e st ab li sh di sabi li ty thro ug h h er o wn te st im on y of p ai n o r othe r subjec ti ve sym pt om s. Bro wn v . Sul li van, 9 21 F.2d 12 33 , 12 36 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). Und er thi s s ta nd ard , th e cl ai m an t m us t s ho w: (1 ) ev id en ce o f anun de rlyin g m ed ic al co nd it io n andeit he r (2 ) ob jecti ve m ed ic al ev id en ce tha t co nf irms th e se ve rity

of t he al le ge d p ai n a ris in g fr om th atco nd it io n o r (3 ) th atth e o bjec ti ve ly de te rm in edm ed ic al co nd it io n i s o f su cha se ve rit y th atitcanbe reas on ab ly exp ect edto gi ve ris e to th e al le ge d p ai n. Id . If th e cl ai m an t’s s ub

jecti ve tes ti m on y

is supp orte d b y

m ed ic al ev id en ce an d sa ti sf ie s thi s p ai n s ta nd ard , th enhe r te st im on y m ay it se lf b e su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt a fin di ng of d is ab il ity . Id. If the Co m m is si on er “ de ci de s n otto cred itsu ch te st im on y , he m

us t d is cred ititex pl ic it ly, an d a rti cu la te ex pl ic itan d a de qu at e reas on s fo r do in g s o.” Id. (c it at io n o m itte d) . “ Fai lu re t o a rti cu la te th e rea so ns for di sc red it in g s ub

jecti ve pa intes ti m on y

requi res , as am at te r of

law, tha t the te st im on y be acce pt edas t ru e.” Id . Here, th e Co m mis si on er fa il edto art ic ul at e

10fu ll y

th e rea so ns fordi sc red it in g R us se ll ’s pai n t es ti m on y

an d we, the refo re, m

us t rem an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . The ALJ fo un d tha t Ru ss el l’s s ta te m en ts co nc ern in g t he in te ns ity , pe rs is te nc e, an d l im it in g e ffec ts of h er al le ge d s ym pt om s wer e g en eral ly credi bl e. Altho ug h h e d et erm in edth athe r de sc rib edact iv it ie s o f da il y li vi ng de m on st rat eda gr eat er “ cap aci ty” th ansh e al le ge d, h e d idno t fi ndth atth os e act iv it ie s un de rm in edhe r co m

pl ai nt s o f pa in or o th er s ym pt om s. Thus , th e ALJ d idno t m ak e anex pl ic itadve rs e cre di bi li ty find in g a ndwas o bl ig edto co ns id er Ru ss el l’s te st im on y as t ru e. See B ro wn, 9 21 F.2dat 1 23 6. Ru ss el l’s t es ti m on y est ab li sh ed th atsh e le ft wo rkaft er s he be ga n t o e xp eri en ce p ai n i n h er ri gh t arm . She als o rep orte d “ pr ob le m s” inhe r ri gh t s ho ul de r, be hi ndhe r ne ck , herlef t wri st , herlef

t kn ee, an d b ot h a nk le s an d h ead ach es . She st at eddu rin g t he he ari ng th athe r sh ou ld er, n eck , wris t, an d kne e p ai n was at e ig htona sc al e o f on e to ten m os t o f th e ti m e an d a t fi ve th e res t o f th e ti m e The ALJ d et erm in edth atRu ss el l h adsev eral sev ere i m pa irments . Thu s, Ru ss el l h adto sh ow (1 ) ob jecti ve m ed ic al ev id en ce co nf irming th e se ve rity

of t he al le ge d p ai n a ris in g fr om th os e im pa irments or ( 2) th atth e o bjec ti ve ly det erm in ed m ed ic al im

pa irments were o f su cha se ve rit y th atth ey co ul d b e rea so nabl y ex pe ct edto gi ve ris e to th e al le ge d p ai n. Se e id . After r ev ie win g the reco rd , th e 11ALJ d et erm in edth atRu ss el l’s “ m ed ic al ly det erm in ab le im pa irments co ul d reas on ab ly be ex pe ct edto pro du ce the all eg edsym pt om s.” R

us se ll th us sat is fie d th e p ai n s ta nd ardbe cau se sh e h adtes ti m on y of p ai n t ha t p rev en te d h er fro m pe rfo rm in g h er job as ake tt le op erat orco up le d wi th ev id en ce o f anun de rlyin g m ed ic al co nd it io n t ha t co ul d re as on ab ly be ex pe ct edto gi ve ris e to th atall eg ed pa in . By sat is fy in g t he pa in st an da rd , Rus se ll est ab li sh eddi sabi li ty, se e id ., andan in ab il ity to pe rfo rm

he r pa strel ev an t wo rk . The b ur de n t he n s hi fte d t o t he Co m m is si on er t o s ho w th atsh e was ab le to pe rfo rm ot he r work t hr ou gh vo cat io na l ex pe rt t es ti m on y . See Ch es te r, 79 2 F .2dat 1 31 -3 2. Here , altho ug h the ALJ m ad e 3 th e ab ov e fi nd in gs de m on st rat in g t ha t Ru ss el l s at is fie d t he pa in st an da rd , he d id no t p res en t a h y

po th et ic al qu es ti on to th e v oc at io na l ex pe rt reg ard in g R us se ll ’s 4 im pa irments as ares ul t o f th atpa in . This co ns ti tu te s re ve rs ib le erro r. See Swi nd le v. Su ll iv an , 91 4 F .2d22 2, 2 26 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (“ Bec au se th e ALJ i m pr op erl y di sc ou nt ed[th e cl ai m an t]’ s s ub jecti ve co m

pl ai nt s o f pa in an d d iz zi ne ss , he d idno t gi ve ad equa te co ns id erat io n t o t he effec t the co m bi na ti on of h er ex ert io na l an d Gene rally , the testimony of a voc ational expert is not necessa ry to determine whether

a 3 claimant ca

n perf orm her pa st releva

nt work. L

ucas v. Sullivan, 918 F.2d 1567, 1573 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 1990). The testimony of a voc ational expert is nece ssary , howeve r, if the r ecor d is inconclusive a s to the claimant’s re sidual functional ca pacity . Chester, 792 F .2d at 131-32. We note that for voc ational expert testimony to constitute substantial evidence , the ALJ 4 must pose a hy

pothetical question which inc ludes all of the c laimant’s impairments. Veg a v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 265 F .3d 1214, 1220 (11th Cir. 2001). 12no n- ex ert io na l i m pa irments ha s o n h er ab il ity to work. . . If [the cla im an t’s] no n- ex ert io na l i m

pa irments si gn ifi can tl y

li m itba si c work a ct iv it ie s, the ALJ sh ou ld. . . ta ke ev id en ce fr om a vo cat io na l ex pe rt t o d et erm in e whe th er the re ex is ts inth e n at io na l ec on omy a si gn ifi can t num

be r of job s fo r so m eo ne with [h er] li mit at io ns .”). Thi s ca se , th eref or e, m us t b e rem an de d t o t he ALJ fo r reco ns id erat io n o f Ru ss el l’s re si du al fun ct io na l capa ci ty. Id. CONCLUSI ON Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we VACATE, REVERSE an dREMAND with in st ru ct io ns th atth e cas e b e rem an de d t o the App eal s C ou nc il .

13