2005 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 12-6-2005 

# W i lli ams 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 . 05-1275

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_2005

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 2005 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 " W i ll i am s v . C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 158. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/158NOT 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 

### No. 05- 1275 MARY W I LLI AMS, Appe l l ant v. CO MM I SS I ON ER

OF SO CI ALSE CU RI TY

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 03- cv- 05015) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os e L. L i nar es Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember15, 2005 B efor e: B A R R Y , and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

PO L L A K *, D i s tr i ctJ udge ( Fi l ed : D ece m ber6, 2005)

OP I NI ON

*H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ct of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.Th e ALJ ’ s d e c i s i o n b e c a me th e f i n a l d e c i s i o n o f

th e Co mmi s s i o n e ru n d e r2 0 C. F . R. 1 § 404. 984. 2 A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge M aryW i l l i ams appe al s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eythataff i r m ed the dec i s i on of the C om m i s s i onerof S ocial S ecuri ty(“C om m i ssi on er”) den y i ng W i l l i am s’ app l i cat i on for di sabl ed w i do w ’s b e n e f i t s u n d e rT i t l e I I o f

th e S o c i a l S e c u r i tyAc t( th e “ Ac t ” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, w e conc l ude thatthe A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) s uffi ci ent l yexpl ai ned the bas es f o r h is d e c isio n to a llo w f o r m e a n in g f

u l ju d icia l re v iew , an d h is d e c isio n f in d in g th a t 1 W ill iam s w a s n o t d isa b led w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e A c t is su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e . W e th e re f

o re a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I. B ecause w e w ri t e for the p art i es, w e on l ybri efl yreci t e t he fa ct s gi ving ri se t o thi s appea l . W i l l i ams, w ho pr evi ous l yw or ked as an i nj ect i on m ol d m achi ne oper at orand food pr epar er , appl i ed fordi s abl ed w i dow ’ s benef i t s i n A pr i l 1995, al l egi ng thats he beca m e di s abl ed on D ece m ber31, 1988. H ercl ai m w as deni ed. W i l l i ams then r eques t ed rev iew b yan A L J an d a h ea ri n g w as h eld o n F eb rua ry2 0 , 2 0 0 2 . W il li am s d id n o t app ea r a tth e h e a r i n g , n o rw a s a n y t e s t i m o n y o f f e r e d o n h e rb e h a l f. S h e w a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y couns el , w ho offe r ed the r es ul t s of a s tr es s t es tand x- r ay s i nt o evi dence . T he A L J i s s ued h is d e c isio n o n M a rc h 7 , 2 0 0 2 , fin d in g th a t W ill iam s h a d a “ se v e re ” im p a irm e n t3

i nvol vi ng hypert ens i on and arthr i t i s , butthats he di d nots us t ai n herbur den of s how i ng th a t th e s e im p a ir m e n ts w e re o f lis tin g s e v e ri ty, f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (d ), a n d th a t th e yp re c lu d e d h e r f ro m p e rf o rm in g h e r p a s t r e le v a n t w o rk a s a f o o d p re p a re r. T her efor e, the A L J concl uded thatW i l l i ams w as notdi s abl ed w i thi n the meani ng of the A ctand deni ed herbenef i t s . T he A ppeal s C ounci l found no gr ounds forr evi ew and the D is tr ic t C o u rt a f

f ir m e d th e d e n ia l o f

b e n e f its . W illia m s n o w a p p e a ls . II. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is c a s e p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ). W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urs t andar d of r evi ew i s l i m i t ed s ol el yt o det erm i ni ng w hetherther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d t o s uppor tthe C o m m is s io n e r’ s d e c is io n . See 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ); P l um m erv. Apf el , 186 F. 3d 422, 427 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . Subst ant i al evi dence has been de fi ned as “s uch r el evantevi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e. ” Id . at427 ( i nt ernal ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “I ti s l es s than a pr eponder ance of the evi dence butm or e than a mer e s ci nt i l l a. ” Jes ur um v. Sec’ y of U. S. D ep’ tof

Heal th & H

um an Ser vs . , 48 F. 3d 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). III . In o rd e r to q u a lifya s d isa b led , an d th u s b e e n tit led to b e n e f its, a c laim a n t m u st d e m o n stra te th a t “th e re is s o m e m e d ica llyd e ter m in a b le b a sis f o r a n im p a irm e n t th a t pr event s hi m fr om engagi ng i n anys ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi tyfora s t atut orytw el ve-S te p o n e a s k s w h e th e r t h e c la im a n t is c u rr e n tly e n g a g e d in s u b s ta n tia l g a in f u l a c tiv ity. 2 If not , then the A L J m ov es on to st ep tw o an d m ustdeterm i ne w hetherthe clai m ant has a “s ever e i m pai r m ent . ” 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520.4 m onth per i od. ” P l um m er , 18 6 F . 3d at42 7 (i nternal ci t at i on and qu otat i on m arks o m i t t e d ) . A c l a i m a n ti s d e e m e d u n a b l e t o e n g a g e i n a n y s u b s t a n t i a l g a i n f u l a c t i v i ty “ o n l y if 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 onl yunabl e t o do hi s pr evi ous w or k butcannot , cons i der i ng hi s age, educa t i on, and w or k 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 n a tio n a l e c o n o m y .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 2 3 (d )( 2 )( A ). In re v iew in g c laim s f

o r d isa b ili tyb e n e f

its, an A L J p e rf

o rm s a f iv e -ste p a n a ly sis to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a c laim a n t is d isa b led . 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 . A t issu e in th is c a se a re th e th ird a n d f

o u rth ste p s. In ste p th re e , the A L J c o m p a re s th e m e d ica l

2 evidence the cl ai m ant has offered t o d em on strat e her i m pairm ent t o a li stof im pairm ents th a t ar e p re su m e d se v e re e n o u g h to p re c lu d e th e c laim a n t f ro m e n g a g in g in su b sta n tial gai nful w or k. 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520( d) . I f a c l ai m ant ’ s i m pai r m enti s notone of thos e li sted o r an eq u ivalen t, the A L J the n d eterm ines w h ethe r th e c lai m an t, d esp it e h er im p a ir m e n t, h a s th e re s id u a l f u n c tio n a l c a p a c ity to p e rf o rm h e r p a s t r e le v a n t w o rk . 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520( e) . T he cl ai m antbear s the bur den of pr oof ateac h of thes e s t eps i n t he s e q u e n tia l e v a lu a tio n p ro c e s s . P l um m er , 1 8 6 F .3 d a t 4 2 8 . I V. O n ap p ea l, W il li am s arg u es th at th e A L J erred b yn o t exp lai n ing the re aso n s fo r5

h i s d e c i s i o n s a ts t e p s th r e e a n d f o u r . S h e a s s e r t s th a tth e A L J e rr e d a ts t e p th r e e b y fi ndi ng thatheri m pai r m ent , w hi l e s ever e, w as notone of the s peci fi cal l yl i s t ed i m pai rm ent s oran equi val entw i thoutm ent i oni ng orcompar i ng anyof thos e l i s t ed i m pai rm ent s t o her s . She al s o cont ends thatthe A L J err ed ats t ep fourbynotexpl ai ni ng ho w he cam e t o h i s r esi du al fun ct i on al capac i tydeterm i nati on and byno tcom pari ng t his c a p a c ity to h e r p a s t r e le v a n t w o rk . W e re q u ir e th a t th e A L J s e t f o rt h th e re a s o n s f

o r h is d e c is io n . C o tterv . H a rr is , 642 F. 2d 700, 704- 05 ( 3d C i r . 1981) . A n A L J ’ s m er e conc l us orys t at ementthata cl ai m ant’ s i m pairm ent does no tm eetor equa l on e of the speci fi cal l yl i st ed im pairm ents i s i ns uffi ci entbeca us e i ti s “bey ond m eani ngful j udi ci al r evi ew . ” B u r n e tt v . C o m m ’ro f S o c . Sec. , 2 2 0 F . 3 d 1 1 2 , 1 1 9 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) . M o r e o v e r , w h e n c o n f r o n t e d w i th c o n tr a d i c t o r y ev iden ce , the A L J m u st ex p lai n h is r ea so n s fo r ac ce p ti n g ce rt ain e v iden ce an d rejecti n g o r d is c o u n tin g o th e r e v id e n c e . I d. a t 1 2 1 . W i l l i ams r el i es heavi l yon ourdeci s i ons i n C otter and B u rn e tt in su p p o rto f h er argum ent that the A L J erred i n n ot ful l yexp l ai ning his reas on i ng . H er r el i ance is m i s pl ace d. I n C ot t er , ther e w as confl i ct i ng m edi cal evi dence and t es t i m onyconce rni ng the seve ri tyof the cl ai m ant’ s heartcon dit i on . 64 2 F . 2d at70 7. W e held that the A L J err ed b yaccep t i ng the m edical evidence an d tes t i m on ythat oppo sed t he clai m ant’ s p o sitio n w ith o u t ex p lain in g h is re a so n in g f o r re jec tin g th e e q u a llyp ro b a tiv e m e d ica l ev iden ce an d test im o n ysu p p o rt ing the c lai m an t, w h ich in clud ed tw o p h y sici an s’6

re c o m m e n d a tio n s th a t th e c la im a n t n o t r e tu rn to h is p a s t r e le v a n t w o rk . I d. L i kew i s e, i n B u rn e tt

the A L J found the cl ai m ant , s uffe r i ng fr om knee a nd back p ro b lem s, to h a v e a “ se v e re m u sc u lo sk e leta l im p a irm e n t,” b u t cu rso rilyd e ter m in e d a t s t ep thr ee thatthe i m pai r m entdi d notm eetorequal the cr i t er i a of a s peci fi cal l yl i s t ed im p a irm e n t. 22 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 . T h e A L J a lso d e ter m in e d th a t th e c laim a n t h a d th e re sid u a l funct i onal capa ci tyt o per form herpas tr el evantw or k, di s r egar di ng w i thoutexpl anat i on notonl ythe t es t i m onyof the cl ai m ant , herhus band, and hernei ghbor , butal s o obj ect i ve m edi cal di agnos es and r eport s , i ncl udi ng one fi ndi ng the cl ai m antt o be “pe r m anent l yand t ot al l ydi s abl ed. ” I

d. a t1 2 1 - 2 2 . W e v a c a t e d a n d r e ma n d e d , c o n c l u d i n g th a tth e ALJ err ed i n notexpl ai ni ng w hythe cl ai m ant ’ s s ever e muscul os kel et al i m pai r m entdi d not m eetorequal one of the l i s t ed i m pai r m ent s ( w hi ch i ncl udes “muscul os kel et al i m pai rm ent s ”) and i n notexpl ai ni ng oreven a cknow l edgi ng the medi cal and t es t i m oni al evi dence thats uppor t ed the cl ai m ant ’ s pos i t i on thats he di d nothave 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 e r p a s t r e le v a n t w o rk . I d. a t 1 2 0 -2 2 . In th is c a se , the re is n o c o n f lict in th e e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld re q u ire th e A L J to e x p l a i n wh yh e wa s a c c e p t i n g c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e a n d r e j e c t i n g o th e re v i d e n c e . W i l l i a ms s i m pl yfai l ed t o pr es ents uffi ci entevi dence , m edi cal ort es t i m oni al , t o m eetherbur den of s how i ng thatherhypert ens i on and arthr i t i s w er e of l i s t i ng s ever i ty , and thats he di d not have the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyt o per form herpas tw or k as a food pr epar er . A s t he A L J not ed i n hi s deci s i on, W i l l i ams di d notoffe ranyt es t i m onyon herbehal f. T he7

m edi cal evi dence s he off er ed w as i ns ubs t ant i al and di d nots uppor thercont ent i on that s he w as di s abl ed. U nl i ke the cl ai m ant s i n C otter and B u rn e tt , no doct ordi agnos ed W i l l i am s as di sabl ed o r r ecom m end ed thatshe no treturn t o h er pastw ork. H er x- ray s rev ea led “ m il d arthrit ic ch an g es,” a n d h er stress test sho w ed n o co ron aryisch em ia or a b n o rm a lity, w h ic h w o u ld b e a n im p a ir m e n t o f lis tin g s e v e ri ty. A f

te r t h e s tr e s s te s t, W ill iam s’ b lo o d p re ss u re re tu rn e d to a n o rm a l lev e l, i n d ica tin g sh e h a d th e re sid u a l funct i onal capa ci tyt o per form l i ghtw or k. I n fac t , the s peci al i s tW i l l i ams cons ul t ed m er el yr efe r r ed herback t o herpr i m arycar e phy s i ci an w i th a r ecomm endat i on thats he i ncr eas e herant i - hypert ens i ve medi cat i on. A l l of thi s w as thor oughl ydet ai l ed i n the A L J ’s d e c is io n , th u s a llo w in g f o r m e a n in g f

u l ju d ic ia l r e v ie w . W h ile th e A L J f

a iled to id e n tifyth e sp e c if ic listin g s a t ste p th re e , the c laim a n t had the bur den of pr es ent i ng s uffi ci entevi dence thatherm edi cal pr obl ems w er e of l i s t i ng s ever i ty . T he bur den i m pos ed on a c l ai m antats t ep thr ee i s a fa rm or e exa ct i ng s t andar d th a n ste p tw o ’s th re sh o ld (u se d to p re v e n t f riv o lo u s c laim s), w h ich re q u ire s th a t a c la im a n t s h o w th a t s h e s u f f e rs f ro m a “ s e v e re ” im p a ir m e n t. See M cC r ea v. C om m ’ rof Soc. Sec. , 3 7 0 F .3 d 3 5 7 , 3 6 0 -6 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). W ill iam s’ e v id e n c e , w h ile s u f f icie n t to sa tisf yste p tw o , w a s in su f

f icie n t to sa tisf

yh e r b u rd e n o f

sh o w in g th a t h e r im p a irm e n ts w er e of l i s t i ng s ever i ty . T he A L J expl ai ned thi s aft erthor oughl yeval uat i ng herevi dence , sta tin g th a t th e re c o rd “ d o e s n o t d isc lo se m e d ica l f in d in g s w h ich m e e t o r e q u a l in se v e rity the cl i ni cal cr i t er i a of a nyi m pai r m entl i s t ed. ” Thus, the A L J ’ s expl anat i on forfi ndi ng8

thatW i l l i ams di d nots at i s fythe thi r d s t ep i s nots o i ns uffi ci entas t o be bey ond m eani ngful j udi ci al r evi ew , and hi s deci s i on i s s uppor t ed bythe s ubs t ant i al evi dence he n o te s in h is o p in io n . A tst ep fo ur, the A L J foun d that , based o n the scantm edical evidence, W i l l i am s had fa i l ed t o demonstr at e thats he coul d notper form herpas tr el evantw or k. C ontr aryt o W i l l i ams’ ar gum ent , the A L J s at i s fac t or i l yexpl ai ned hi s r eas oni ng fordet erm i ni ng her r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyand s uffi ci ent l ycompar ed thi s capa ci tyt o the demands of her pas tr el evantw or k. T he A L J s peci fi cal l yr ej ect ed W i l l i ams’ as s ert i on thatthe r es ul t s of h e r s tr e s s te s t s h o w e d th a t h e r r e s id u a l f u n c tio n a l c a p a c ity w a s lim ite d to s e d e n ta ry w o rk , not i ng thatherdoct orfound no abnorm al i tyand herbl ood pr es s ur e r eturned t o bas el i ne l evel s aft erdi s cont i nui ng the t es t . T hus , the A L J concl uded thatW i l l i ams had the re sid u a l f

u n c tio n a l ca p a c ityto p e rf o rm “ lig h t w o rk ,” w h ich in c lu d e s w o rk th a t occa s i onal l yr equi r es l i ft i ng and ca rry i ng tw entypounds , fr equent l yr equi r es l i ft i ng and carry i ng t en pounds , and “a good deal of w al ki ng ors t andi ng. ” See 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 6 7 (b). T h e A L J the n m ad e f ind ing s related to the p h y sical de m an d s o f W il li am s’ p a s t r e le v a n t w o rk , n o tin g th a t h e r p a s t w o rk a s a f o o d p re p a re r “ re q u ir e d [ h e r] to s it, s t and and w al k foronl yfourhour s a dayand s he w as notl i ft i ng orcarry i ng m or e than t en p o u n d s.” T h e A L J th e n c o m p a re d th e se p h y sic a l d e m a n d s to W ill iam s’ r e sid u a l funct i onal capa ci ty , concl udi ng that , beca us e s he coul d per form l i ghtw or k, s he coul d return t o h er pastrel evan tw ork as a foo d p repar er. W e t herefore con cl ud e t hat the A L J9

s u f f ic ie n tly e x p la in e d h is re a s o n in g to a llo w f o r m e a n in g f

u l ju d ic ia l r e v ie w . M o re o v e r, h is d e te rm in a tio n is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . * * * * * A ccordi ng l y , becau se the A L J suffi ci entl yexp l ai ned his reas on i ng for hi s d e c is io n s a t s te p s th re e a n d f o u r, a n d h is d e c is io n s a re s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , w e a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.