09-1699 -cv

M an c u so v. Astru e UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E FF E CT . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S UM M ARY ORDER I N A DOCUM E NT FI L E D W I T H T HI S COURT, A PA RT Y M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D AT ABA S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S E RVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i t yof N ew Y or k, on t he 14 dayof J anuary , tw o thous and t en. th P RES ENT : RALP H K. W I NTE R,

R E E N A R A G G I, DE BR A ANN L I VI NGS T ON,

C i rcui tJud

ges.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- YVE T T E M ANC US O, P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 09- 1699- cv M I C H A E L J . A ST R U E , C om m i s s i onerof Soci al S e c u r i ty, D ef endant

-Appel l ee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L A N T : M A R K SC H N E I D E R , Pl att s bur gh, N ew Y or k. A P P E A R I N G F O R A P P E L L E E : SO M M A TTI E RA M RU P, Sp e c i al A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A t t orney ( St ephen P. C ont e, A ct i ng C hi ef Counsel , R egi on I I , O ffi ce of the G ener al C o u n s e l, S o c ia l S e c u ri t y A d m in is tr a tio n , on the b r i ef ) f or A n d rew T . B ax ter, Interim U n it ed S tat es A t t orneyforthe N or thern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k.T hi s cas e w as as s i gned t o M agi s tr at e Judge R andol ph T r eec e on J anuary25, 2007 1 w i th the con sentof b oth part i es. 2 A p p ea l fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e N o rth ern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (R a n d o lp h F . T re e c e , Ma g istra te Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D that the j udgm ent of the di s tr i ct court , ent er ed on M ar ch 31, 2 0 09, is AF F I RMED . 1 Y vett e M ancus o appea l s fr om a di s tr i ctcourtorde r affi rm i ng the C om m i s s i onerof Soci al Secur i ty ’ s ( the “Com m i s s i oner ”) deni al of herappl i cat i on fordi s abi l i tyi ns ur ance and supp l em ental securi tyi nco m e ben efi t s un der the So ci al S ecuri tyA ct . W e assum e t he p art i es’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det ai l ed and thought ful m emora ndum of M ar ch 31, 2009,
as w el l as the fa ct s and r ecor d of pr i or pr ocee di ngs , i ncl udi ng the fi ndi ngs of A dm i ni s tr at i ve L a w Ju d g e (“ A L J” ) C a rl E . S tep h a n . W e re f e re n c e th e s e m a te r ials o n lya s n e c e ss a ryto
e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m. 1. St andar d of R evi ew “W hen a di s tr i ctcourthas r evi ew ed a de t erm i nat i on of the C om m i s s i oner , w e r evi ew the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d de nov o to d eterm i ne w hetherther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence
s uppor t i ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on and w hether the C om m i s s i onerappl i ed the corr ect l egal s t andar d. ” Poupor e v. A s true, 566 F. 3d 303, 305 ( 2d C i r . 2 0 09) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s an d alt era ti o n o m itted); see also 4 2 U . S . C . § 4 0 5 (g) (p rov iding that C o m m issi o n er’sI n l i ghtof thi s concl us i on, w e nee d notaddr es s the C om m i s s i oner ’ s ar gum entthat 2 M ancus o w ai ved herbur den cha l l enge. 3 fac tual fi ndi ngs ar e conc l us i ve i f s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence ) . Subst ant i al evi dence is “ 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 in d m ig h t ac c e p t as a d e q u a te to su p p o rt a
co n clus ion . ” C o n so l. E d ison C o . v . N L R B , 3 0 5 U . S . 1 9 7 , 2 2 9 (19 3 8 ). 2 . R e sid u a l F u n c tio n a l C a p a c ity
a. B ur den of Pr oof M ancus o ar gues that the C om m i s s i oner fai l ed t o pr ove at the fi fth and fi nal s t ep of the “se q u en ti al ev alua ti o n p roc ess” u sed to d eterm ine d is a b ili ty , see 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 0 (a), thats he r et ai ned t he re s i dual funct i onal capa ci ty ( “R FC ”) s uffi ci ent t o m eet the demands of l i ghtw or k. W e not e at the out s et the part i es ’ di s put e overthe r el evantbur den of pr oof. T he C om m i s s i onerur ges appl i cat i on of r egul at i ons pas s ed i n 2003 thatcl ar i fythatats t ep fi ve, “the C om m i ssione rneed onl ys how thatther e i s w or k i n the nat i onal economythatt he cl ai m antcan do; he nee d notpr ovi de addi t i onal evi dence of the cl ai m ant ’ s r es i dual f u n c t i o n a l c a pa c i ty . ” P o u p o r e v . As tru e , 5 6 6 F . 3 d a t3 0 6 ; s e e a l s o 2 0 C. F . R. § 404 . 1 5 6 0 (c)(2). M ancus o ar gues thatthi s r egul at i on does notappl yt o hercas e, as s he
a lleg e s a d isa b ili tya risin g b e f o re 2 0 0 3 . S h e a ss e rts th a t th e C o m m iss io n e r w a s o b lig e d to pr ove her R FC t o per form l i ghtw or k. W e l eftthi s ques t i on open i n Poupor e v. A s true, 566 F. 3d at 306, and need not concl us i vel ydeci de the i s s ue her e bec aus e the A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatM ancus o coul d per form l i ghtw or k w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . 24 b . T re a tin g P h y sic ian R u le M ancus o c l a i ms th a tth e ALJ ’ s f i n d i n g s wi th r e s p e c tt o h e ra b i l i tyt o p e r f o r m l i ght
w or k ar e i nfec t ed byhi s fai l ur e t o apply the “tre at i ng phy s i ci an rul e. ” T h e a rg u m e n t is
w i thout m er i t . I t i s true, as M ancus o ar gues , thattr eat i ng phy s i ci ans not ed pai n, depr es s i on, a n d a n x iety , b u t t h e s e o b se rv a tio n s w e re a c c e p ted b yth e A L J a n d in c o rp o ra ted in to h is anal y s i s . H i s det erm i nat i on thatthes e conc erns di d not r i s e t o a l evel s uffi ci entt o pr ecl ude
w or k w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , as di s cus s ed i n the nexts ect i on.

c. S u b stan ti al E v iden ce o f M an cu so ’s A b il ityto P erf o rm L igh t W o rk L i ghtw o rk req u i r es the abi l i tyt o l i ftup t o 20 pounds occa s i onal l y , l i ft10 pounds f r e q u e n t l y , s t a n d a n d wa l k f o ru p t o 6 h o u r s a d a y , a n d s i tf o ru p t o two h o u r s . S e e 2 0 C. F . R. § 4 0 4 . 1 5 6 7 ( b ) ; P r o g r a m P o l i c y S t a t e me n t , T i t l e s I I a n d XVI : De t e r mi n i n g Ca p a b i l i ty T o Do O therW or k – T he M edi cal
- V ocat i onal R ul es of A ppendi x 2, SSR 83- 10, 1983 W L 31251, at*5- 6. T he A L J ’ s fi ndi ng thatM ancus o had the R FC t o per form l i ght w or k w as s uppor t ed b yo b jec tiv e e v id e n c e o f

p h y sic a l e x a m in a tio n s a t w h ich p h y sic ian s re p o rte d M a n c u so ’s f u ll
r ange of m ot i on and s tr ength i n herupperand l ow erext rem it ies, abi l i tyt o w al k w i thout d i f f i c u lty, a n d la c k o f

m u s c le a tr o p h y . Fu r th e r , u p o n r e v i e w of a l l me d i c a l e v i d e nce, cons ul t i n g p h y s i c i a n Dr . Ri c h a r d Goo d ma n r e p o r t e d th a tM a n c u s o s u f f e r e d n o l i mi t a t i ons in h e r a b ili tyto lift, c a rry , sta n d , w a lk , sit, p u sh , o r p u ll. M ancus o ar gues that the A L J neverthel es s fai l ed adequa t el y t o cons i derthe ef fec t s of
s pecific im pai r m ent s , i ncl udi ng fi br om y al gi a and obe s i ty . W e r ej ectthes e ar gum ent s as5

u n s u p p o r t e d b y th e r e c o r d , l a r g e l y f o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b y th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t . A s t o o b e s i ty, m edi cal r eport s r efe r enci ng M ancus o’ s w ei ght fai l ed t o i dent i fy l i m i t at i ons ther efr om , and,
as al r eady not ed, no l i m i t at i ons s uffi ci ent t o pr ecl ude l i ght w or k w er e i dent i fi ed u pon phy s i cal exami nat i on of M an cu s o’ s over al l condi t i on. T hus , ther e i s no fac tual bas i s for th in k in g th a t “a n ya d d iti o n a l an d c u m u lativ e e f f e c ts o f o b e sity ” lim ited M a n c u so ’s a b ili ty t o p e r f o r m l i g h two r k . 2 0 C. F . R. P t . 4 0 4 , S u b p t . P , Ap p . 1 , § 1 . 0 0 Q. M an cu so ’s co n tention that h er p sy ch iatri c im p airm en ts r en d ere d h er u n ab le t o w o rk i s si m i l arl yun supp ort ed b ythe record. W hil e D r. R i cha rd L io tta report ed thatM ancu so s u f f e r e d “ s er i ous i mpa i r me n ti n s o c i a l a n d o c c u p a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n i n g , ” R. a t2 7 4 , th e ALJ pr oper l ycons i der ed thi s evi dence and ul t i m at el yconcl uded thatthe i m pai r m entdi d not pr ecl ude M ancus o fr om per form i ng l i ghtw or k . Th i s d e t e rmi n a t i o n i s s ubs t ant i al l ys uppor t ed bythe r eport s of D r s . A nnett e P ay n e, R i char d W ei s s , and A ar on Sat l off. D r . Sat l off, w ho
w a s s u b jec t to w ritten c ro ss -e x a m in a tio n , sta ted th a t M a n c u so h a d n o lim itatio n in h e r a b ili ty to u n d e rsta n d , rem e m b e r, a n d c a rry o u t sh o rt, sim p le in stru c tio n s o r to in ter a c t ap p ro p ria tely
w i th co-w orkers and supervi sors . S ee 20 C . F . R . § 4 04 . 15 20 (c) (s t at i ng that i m pairm ent m ust

“ sig n if ica n tlylim it[] . . . p h y sic a l o r m e n tal ab ili ty to d o b a sic w o rk a c tiv iti e s” to c o n stitu te “se v ere im p airm en t” req u ir ed fo r disab il ityfin d ing ). M a n c u so a ss e rts th a t th e A L J im p ro p e rlyd isc o u n ted h e r su b j ect i v e a lleg a tio n s o f

p a in i n as s es s i ng R FC . W e di s agr ee. T he A L J acc ept ed M ancus o’ s pai n as a fact orl i m i t i ng her abi l i t i es and pr ecl udi ng heavyw or k. N everthel es s , hi s det erm i nat i on thatthe pai n w as notL i ke the di s tr i ctcourt , w e r ej ectas uns ubs t ant i at ed M ancus o’s ar gum entthatt he 3 report s and tes t i m on yof D r. G oo dm an w ere t ai nted bybias . T h a t M a n c u so re c e iv e d a f a v o ra b le d e c isio n o n a su b se q u e n t ap p lica tio n f o r b e n e f its 4 does notal t erouranal y s i s , as the A L J i n the s econ d ca se b ase d hi s det erm i nat i on t hat M ancus o w as di s abl ed as of M ay31, 2006, on m edi cal evi dence pr oduced aft er thi s cas e w as deci ded . See Pol l ar d v. H al t er , 377 F. 3d 183, 193 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( obs ervi ng thatnew evi dence i s m at er i al onl y w her e ther e exi s t s “a r eas onabl e pos s i bi l i tythatthe new evi dence w o u l d h a v e i n f

l u e n c e d th e C o m m i s s i o n e rt o d e c i d e c l a i m a n t ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n d i f f e r e n t l y” (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d alt era ti o n o m itted)).

6 s uffi ci entt o pr ecl ude l i ghtw or k w as s uppor t ed bythe obj ect i ve m edi cal evi dence and byt he
re p o rts o f

D r. A m e lit a B a lag tas a n d D r. G o o d m a n . S e e A p o n te v . S e c ’y , D e p ’t o f H e a lth 3 & H u m an S erv s. o f U . S . , 7 2 8 F . 2 d 5 8 8 , 5 9 1 (2d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ). O n the to tal ityo f th e re co rd, w e c o n clud e tha t sub stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the A L J’s det erm i nat i on thatM ancus o can pe r form l i ghtw or k. 4 3 . T h e V o ca ti o n al E x p ert T o the ext entthe A L J r el i ed on a voc at i onal expertt o m ake the fi ndi ngs r equi r ed by 20 C . F. R § 404. 1560( c) ( 2) , M ancus o ar gues fur therthatthe h yp o thet i cal pr ovi ded t o the
vo cat i on al exp ertfai l ed acc urat el yt o refl ecther i m pairm ents . T he argu m ent fai l s becau se the A L J ’ s hypothet i cal m i r r or ed M ancus o’ s R FC , w hi ch, as des cr i bed s upr a Part . 2c, w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d. T he C om m i s s i oner m ayr el yon a voca t i onal
ex p ert’s t esti m o n yco n ce rnin g the a v ail ab il ityo f jo b s su it ed to a h yp o thet ic a l perso n ’s capa bi l i t i es s o l ong as the hypothet i cal i s bas ed on s ubs t ant i al evide n ce . See D um as v.7

S ch w eik e r, 7 1 2 F . 2 d 1 5 4 5 , 1 5 5 3 -54 (2d C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). T h u s w e c o n clud e tha t th e A L J’s reli an ce o n the v o ca ti o n al ex p ert’s t esti m o n yh ere w as p rop er. 4. C om pl i ance w i th the R emand O r der M ancus o’ s ar gum ent that the A L J fai l ed t o compl yw i th the A ppeal s C ounci l r emand
o rd e r i s u n s u p p o r t e d b y t h e re c o rd . T h e re m a n d o rd e r in stru c ted th e A L J to (1 ) o b tain updat ed medi cal r ecor ds , ( 2) eval uat e the s ever i tyand ef fec ts o f M ancus o’ s m ent al i m pai rm ent s i n acc or dance w i th appl i cabl e r egul at i ons , ( 3) r econs i derM ancus o’ s R FC and pr ovi de a r at i onal e forthe r es ul t i ng as s es s m entbas ed on the evi dence , and ( 4) i f w arr ant ed,
o b tai n ev iden ce fro m a v o ca ti o n al e x p ert. L ike the d istri ct co u rt , w e c o n clud e tha t th e re co rd refl ect s the A L J’ s com pli ance w i th each of these i nst ruct i on s. I n s um , w e conc l ude thatthe r ecor d pr ovi des s u b sta nt i al evi dence t o s uppor tthe A L J ’ s deni al of bene fi t s . “W her e the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on r es t s on adequa t e fi ndi ngs s uppor t ed byevi dence havi ng r at i onal pr obat i ve for ce, w e w i l l not s ubs t i tut e ourj udgm ent f o rth a to f th e C o m m i s s i o n e r . ” V e i n o v . B a rn h a r t , 3 1 2 F . 3 d 5 7 8 , 5 8 6 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . We have c ons i der ed al l of M ancus o’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s and conc l ude thattheyar e w i thout
me r i t . Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e j u d g me n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED .
FOR TH E CO UR T: CATHERI

NE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Cler k of Court B y :