Pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 43( c) ( 2) , M i chae l J . A s true i s s ubs t i tut ed for * J o A nne B . B arnhartas appel l ee i n thi s act i on. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 23,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT OL L I E J . S E GOVI A,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. M I CH AE L J . AS T RU E , * C o m m iss io n e r, S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s t r at i on,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 7008 ( D . C. N o. 03 - CV - 67 8- P) (E .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e O’ BRI EN , HOLL OW AY , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es.

O l l i e Segovi a appe al s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or deraff i r m i ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deni al of herappl i cat i on forSoci al Secur i tydi s abi l i tyand- 2-

s u p p l e me n t a l s e c u r i t yi n c o me b e n e fi t s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 4 0 5 (g ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e A F F IR M . I O n N o v e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 1 , M s . S e g o v ia a p p lie d fo r S o c ia l S e c u ri ty b e n e fits . She al l eged thats he bec ame di s abl ed as of N ovember19, 2001, due t o pai n i n her h a n d s, b a c k , n e c k , an d k n e e s. A f ter a h e a rin g , the A L J a ss e ss e d M s. S e g o v ia wi t h t h e r e s i d u a l f

u n c t i o n a l c a p a c i ty( RF C) t o per form a l i ghtl evel of w or k w i th fr equent l yl i ft i ng and ca rry i ng u p to 1 0 p o u n d s , a n d o c c a s io n a lly c a rr y in g n o t m o re th a n 2 0 p o u n d s . H ow ever , t he cl ai m ant ’ s r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyi s l i m i t ed by o n lyo c c a sio n a l fin g e rin g a n d o v e rh e a d re a c h in g . S h e sh o u ld o n ly occasi on al l ypu sh and / or pull w i th h er uppe r and l ow er extrem i t i es; and s t oop, cr ouch, kneel , and cr aw l notm or e than occ as i onal l y . H er ca p ac ityis fu rth er li m it ed b yo cc asio n al cli m b ing o f stairs, h o w ev er, no cl i m bing of

ropes, l add ers , or scaffol ds. A p lt. A p p . at 2 3 . H e d e ter m in e d th a t M s. S e g o v ia’ s R F C d id n o t allo w h e r to per form anyof herpas tr el evantw or k. B as ed on t es t i m onyfr om a voca t i onal expert( V E ) , he then det erm i ned thatM s . Segovi a coul d per form the j obs of t i cket t aker , us her , and ca fet er i a att endant , w hi ch exi s t ed i n s i gni fi cantnum ber s i n the nat i onal and l ocal economi es . T hus , he deni ed M s . Segovi a’ s appl i cat i on for b e n e fits . T h e A p p e a ls C o u n c il d e n ie d h e r r e q u e s t fo r r e v ie w . In th e d istri ct co u rt , the m ag istrate jud g e ind icated that M s. S eg o v ia’s lim itatio n s o f

o n lyo c c a sio n a l fin g e rin g a n d o v e rh e a d re a c h in g m a yc o n flict w ith t he l i s t i ngs fort i ckett akerand ca fet er i a att endanti n the D i ct i onar y of- 3-

O ccupat i onalTi t l es (4th ed . 1 9 9 1 ) (DOT) and Sel ected C har act er is t i cs of O ccupat i ons D ef

i ned i n the Revis ed D i ct i onar y of O ccupat i onalTi t l es ( 1993) ( S CO ) . H e hel d, how ever , t hats he coul d w or k as an us herand thatus herj obs ex ist ed in sign ifi ca n t nu m b ers. B ec au se h e d eterm ined that the C o m m issi o n er’s deci s i on w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence and thatthe C om m i s s i oner appl i ed the corr ectl egal s t andar ds , he r ecomm ended the di s tr i ctcourtaff i r m the deni al of bene fi t s . T he di s t r i ctcour tadopt ed the r ecomm endat i on, and M s. S ego via appeals . II O n appea l , M s . Segovi a r ai s es the thr ee i s s ues s he r ai s ed i n the di s tr i ct cour t : ( 1) t he V E ’ s t es t i m onydi ffe r ed, w i thoutexpl anat i on, fr om the s peci fi cat i ons of the DOT; ( 2) t he A L J i m pr oper l yas s es s ed hercr edi bi l i ty ; and (3 ) t h e A L J d is re g a rd e d h e r t re a tin g p h y s ic ia n s ’ o p in io n s a b o u t h e r c o n d itio n . “W e r evi ew t he comm i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on onl yt o det erm i ne w hethers ubs t ant i al ev iden ce su p p o rt s tha t dec isi o n an d w h ethe r th e a p p li ca b le l eg al st an d ard s w ere appl i ed corr ect l y . ” Shepherd v. Apf el , 1 8 4 F . 3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 1 9 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). A. M s . Segovi a fi r s tcont ends thatthe V E ’ s t es t i m onyconfl i ct s w i th the DOT beca us e the des cr i pt i ons i n t he DOT and the S CO fort i ckett aker , us her , and cafet er i a att endantr equi r e fi nger i ng and r eac hi ng capa bi l i t i es thatar e bey ond her as s es s ed R FC . A s par tof thi s ar gum ent , s he cont ends ther e ar e nots i gni fi cant- 4-

num ber s of us herpos i t i ons i n t he ec onom y . T he C om m i s s i onerar gues that M s. S e g o v ia w a iv e d h e r u sh e r-re late d a rg u m e n ts b e c a u se (1 ) sh e d id n o t o bjec t to th e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s fin d in g th a t sh e c o u ld p e rfo rm th e u sh e r jo b a n d (2 ) sh e d id notar gue thatt he us herj ob does notexi s ti n s i gni fi cantnum ber s unt i l s he fi l ed herobj ect i ons t o t he magi s t r at e j udge’ s fi ndi ngs and r ecomm endat i ons . T he C om m i s s i oneral s o s ubm i t s t hatM s . Segovi a’ s R FC perm i t s hert o per form the t i cket- t aker and cafeter i a-att end ant j ob s. A s th e C o m m iss io n e r a rg u e s, “ [ t]h is c o u rt h a s a d o p ted a firm w a iv e r ru le w h ich p rov ides that a li ti g an t’ s fa il u re to fil e ti m elyo bjecti o n s to a m ag istrate’s r epor tand r ecomm endat i on w ai ves appel l at e r evi ew of both the fa ctual and l egal det erm i nat i ons . ” Key E n e rg y R e s . In c . v . Me r r ill (In r e Key E n e rg y R e s . In c .) , 2 3 0 F .3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 1 9 9 -1 2 0 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (q u o tatio n a n d b ra c k e ts o m itt e d ); s ee als o Sol izv. C hat er , 82 F. 3d 373, 375- 76 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( appl y i ng fi r m w ai ver rul e i n Soci al Secur i t ycas e) . I ti s i m m at er i al w hetherM s . Segovi a w ai ved her abi l i t yt o ar gue w hethers he ca n per form the us herj ob, how ever , beca us e the r es ul ti s t he s ame. T he r ecor d s uppor t s the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on that M s . Segovi a ca n per form t he us herj ob. Speci fi cal l y , the S CO s t at es the pos i t i on req u ir es o n lyo cc asio n al fing ering an d o cc asio n al reac h ing , w h ich lim it ati o n s are c o n s is te n t w ith M s . S e g o v ia ’s R F C . See S CO § 0 9 .0 5 .0 8 ; A p lt. A p p . a t 4 4 2 -4 3 . T he nextques t i on i s w hetherM s . Segovi a w ai ved the ar gum entthatus her jo b s d o n o t ex ist in sig n ifica n t n u m b e rs b e c a u se sh e d id n o t d isc u ss th e p o in t u n til- 5-

sh e filed h e r o bjec tio n s. G e n e ra lly , “[ i]ss u e s ra ise d fo r th e first tim e in obj ect i ons t o t he magi s t r at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i on ar e dee m ed w ai ved. ” Mars hal lv. C hat er , 75 F. 3d 1421, 1426 ( 10th C i r . 1996) . I n thi s cas e, w e ar e not convi nced thatM s . Segovi a had r eas on t o ar gue w hetheranyone of the pos i t i ons exi s t ed i n s i gni fi cantnum ber s unt i l the magi s tr at e j udge r ai s ed the i s s ue, and thus w e dec l i ne t o fi nd t hi s i s s ue w ai ved. T he di s t r i ctcour thel d t her e w as a s i gni fi cantnum berof us herj obs . T he r e c o r d , h o we v e r , a c tu a l l yi s u n c l e a ra s t o th e n u mb e ro f u s h e rj o b s , a s th e VE test ifi ed that there w ere 3 5 0 u sh er andt i cket - t akerj obs i n O kl ahoma and 32, 000 nat i onal l y . H e di d nots epar at el yi dent i fyhow m anyof the 350 ( or32, 000) j obs w ere u sh ers a n d h o w m an yw ere ti ck et t ak ers. I n an yev en t, ev en if th e re co rd d id e sta b lish th e n u m b e r o f u sh e r jo b s a v a ilab le, th is c o u rt h a s h e ld th a t itis inap p rop ri ate fo r th e fed era l cou rt s to d eterm ine in the fir st i n stan ce w h ethe r a p a rt ic u la r n u m b e r o f

jo b s is a s ig n ific a n t n u m b e r. See A l l en v. Ba rnha rt , 357 F. 3d 1140, 1144- 45 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) . T he l ack of r ecor d evi dence and A l l en i ndi cat e thatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n aff i r m i ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on bas ed s ol el yon M s . Segovi a’ s abi l i tyt o do the us herj ob. T h is d e te rm in a tio n , h o w e v e r, d o e s n o t r e q u ir e re m a n d o f th is p ro c e e d in g . O urt as k i n Soci al Secur i t ypr ocee di ngs i s t o det erm i ne w hethers ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e s u p p o rt s th e C o m m is s io n e r’ s d e c is io n . S e e , e .g ., Sh eph erd , 184 F. 3d at 1199. T he r ecor d i n t hi s cas e meet s the s ubs t ant i al - evi dence s t andar d. B oth the- 6-

t i cket - t akerand ca fet er i a- at t endantpos i t i ons r equi r e onl yocca s i onal fi nger i ng, c o n s is te n t w ith M s . S e g o v ia ’s R F C . See S CO §§ 09. 05. 02, 09. 05. 08; A pl t . A pp. a t 4 3 9 , 4 4 7 . B o th p o s itio n s re q u ir e “ f re q u e n t” re a c h in g , s e e S CO §§ 09. 05. 02, 09. 05. 08; A pl t . A pp. at439, 446, w hi l e M s . Segovi a i s l i m i t ed t o occa s i onal overhead r eac hi ng. Forpurpos es of the S CO , how ever , “r eac hi ng” i s defi ned as “[ e]x tend ing h an d (s) an d arm (s) i n any di r ect i on .” S C O a t C -3 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T he S CO does nots epar at el ycl as s i fyoverhead r eac hi ng. T hus , underthe S CO , even a j ob r equi r i ng fr equentr eac hi ng does notnece s s ar i l yr equi r e more than o c c a sio n a l over headr eac hi ng. T he V E w as aw ar e of M s . Segovi a’ s l i m i t at i ons on overhead r eac hi ng, and he t es t i fi ed both thats he coul d per form the j obs he i dent i fi ed and thathi s opi ni on of the j obs open t o herw as cons i s t entw i th the DOT ’ s s peci fi cat i ons . A pl t . A pp. at391- 92, 395. I n thes e ci r cumst ance s , the V E ’ s t es t i m onydoes notconfl i ctw i th the DOT and S CO s o m uch as i tcl ar i fi es h o w th e irb ro a d c a te g o ri z a tio n s a p p ly to th is s p e c ific c a s e . See Carey v. Apf el , 230 F. 3d 131, 146 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) ( “To t he ext entthatther e i s anyi m pl i ed or i ndi r ectconfl i ctbetw een the voca t i onal expert ’ s t es t i m onyand the DOT in th is cas e, . . . t he A L J m ayr el yupon the voca t i onal expert ’ s t es t i m onypr ovi ded that th e re c o rd re flec ts a n a d e q u a te b a sis fo r d o in g so . . . . [ A ]ll k in d s o f im p licit confl i ct s ar e pos s i bl e and the ca t egor i cal r equi r ement s l i s t ed i n the D O T do not and ca nnots at i s fac t or i l yans w ereverys uch s i tuat i on. ”) . Fur ther , the DOT des cr i pt i ons forcafet er i a att endantand t i ckett akerdo noti ndi cat e thatthes e j obs- 7-

p re d o m in a n tly in v o lv e o v e rh e a d re a c h in g ra th e r t h a n o th e r t yp e s o f re a c h in g . See D O T § § 3 1 1 .6 7 7 -0 1 0 , 3 4 4 .6 6 7 -0 1 0 ; A p lt. A p p . a t 4 3 7 , 4 4 5 . I n s um , t he V E ’ s t es t i m onythatM s . Segovi a coul d per form the j obs of t i ckett aker , us her , and ca fet er i a att endantcons t i tut es s ubs t ant i al evi dence s u p p o rt in g th e C o m m is s io n e r’ s d e c is io n to d e n yb e n e fits . B. M s . Segovi a’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s conce rni ng cr edi bi l i tyand hertr eat i ng p h y sic ian s’ o p in io n s c o m e u n d e r o u r firm w a iv e r ru le. M s. S e g o v ia’ s o bjec tio n to th e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s fin d in g s a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n s re g a rd in g th e se a rg u m e n ts w as concl us or yand non- s peci fi c. Such s t at ement s ar e i ns uffi ci ent : “onl yan obj ect i on t hati s s uffi ci ent l ys peci fi c t o focus the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s att ent i on on the fac tual and l egal i s s ues t hatar e trul yi n di s put e w i l l advanc e the pol i ci es behi nd t he M agi s t r at e’ s A ctt hatl ed us t o adopta w ai verrul e i n the fi r s ti ns t ance . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. O ne Parce lof R ealP r op. , 7 3 F . 3 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 6 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ); se e a lso S o liz , 8 2 F .3 d a t 3 7 5 -7 6 (fin d in g g e n e ra l o bjec tio n “ n o t su fficie n t to p r e s e r v e t h e mo r e s p e c i fi c i s s u e s p l a i n t i ff a t t e mp t s t o r a i s e o n a p p e a l ” ) ; F e d . R. C iv. P. 72 (b) (req u ir ing a p artyto fil e “ sp ec ifi c” o bjecti o n s). W h il e the firm w a iv e r r u le d o e s n o t a p p ly w h e n th e in te re s ts o f ju s tic e re q u ir e re v ie w , Morales Fe r n a n d ezv . I

NS , 418 F. 3d 1116, 1119 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , M s . Segovi a has offe r ed n o ju stifica tio n fo r in v o k in g th is e x c e p tio n to th e ru le a n d n o n e a ffirm a tiv e ly appea r s fr om t he ci r cumst ance s of r ecor d. T hus , w e dec l i ne t o cons i derher- 8-

ar gum ent s aboutt he A L J ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i ons and hi s eval uat i on of her t reat i ng ph y si ci ans’ opi nions. III T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

T err ence L . O ’ B r i en C i r cui tJ udge