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 6-10-2005 

# M cD aniel s 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 . 04-3267

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 author i 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 " M cD anie l s v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1030. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1030NOT 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. 04- 3267 BE RT H I N A C. M c D A N I ELS, A ppel l ant v. CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY ON A P P EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 03- cv- 00190 D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge: T he H onor abl e D enni s M . C avana ugh Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay26, 2005 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C hi ef J udge, A L I T O and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 10, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT P E R C U R I A M: B e c a u s e w e w ri te f

o r t h e p a rt ie s o n ly, w e w ill n o t r e c ite th e f a c ts o f th is c a s e . B er t hi na M cD ani el s appea l s a fi nal or derof the D i s t r i ctC our taff i r m i ng a dec i s i on of the2

C om m i s s i onerof Soci al Secur i t ydeny i ng herappl i cat i on forD i s abi l i t yI ns ur ance Be n e f i t s ( “ DI B” ) a n d S u p p l e me n t a l S e c u r i t yI n c o me ( “ S S I ” ) . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we a f f i r m. I. W hen r evi ew i s deni ed byt he A ppeal s C ounci l , thi s C our tr evi ew s the dec i s i on of t he A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) as the fi nal deci s i on of the C om m i s s i oner . See M at t hew s v. A pfel , 239 F. 3d 589, 592 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . T he C om m i s s i oner ’ s appl i cat i on of t he l aw r ece i ves pl enaryr evi ew . See M ons ourM ed. C t r . v. H eckl er , 806 F. 2d 1185, 1191 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 6 ) . F i n d i n g s o f f a c ta r e r e v i e we d f

o rs u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . S e e 4 2 U. S . C. § 4 0 5 (g ) (2 0 0 0 ) (“ T h e f in d in g s o f

th e C o m m iss io n e r o f

S o c ial S e c u ritya s to a n yf a c t, i f s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , s hal l be conc l us i ve . . . . ”) ; H art r anftv. A pfel , 181 F . 3 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). U ndert he s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d, the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on m us tbe up held i f i ti s suppo rt ed o n the r ecord as a w ho l e by“such rel evan tevidence as a re a s o n a b le m in d m ig h t a c c e p t a s a d e q u a te to s u p p o rt a c o n c lu s io n .” M o n s o u r M e d . C tr ., 8 0 6 F .2 d a t 1 1 9 0 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h e e v id e n c e “ m u st b e e n o u g h to j us t i fy , i f the tr i al w er e t o a j ur y , a r efus al t o di r ecta ver di ct . ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s o m itted). II. T o b e e lig ib le f

o r D IB a n d S S I, a c laim a n t m u st e sta b lish th a t sh e is u n a b le “ to3

e n g a g e in a n ysu b sta n tial g a in f u l ac tiv ityb yre a so n o f

a n ym e d ica llyd e ter m in a b le phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai r m entw hi ch ca n be expe ct ed t o r es ul ti n death orw hi ch has l as t ed orcan be expec t ed t o l as tfora cont i nuous per i od of notl es s than 12 mont hs . ” 42 U . S . C . § 4 2 3 (d)(1 )(A ) (20 0 0 ); see also id. § 1 3 8 2 c(a )(3)(A ). A p p li ca ti o n s fo r be n ef it s are eval uat ed undert he fi ve- s t ep pr oces s of 20 C . F. R . §§ 404. 1520 and 416. 920. T he ev alua ti o n co n side rs (1) w h ethe r th e c lai m an t i s w o rkin g , (2) w h ethe r she h as a sev ere i m pai rm ent , ( 3) w hetherhers ever e i m pai r m entm eet s orm edi cal l yequal s a l i s t ed i m pai rm ent , ( 4) w hethers he has t he r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yt o r eturn t o pas tr el evant w or k, and ( 5) w hethers he ca n m ake a n adj us t m entt o otheravai l abl e w or k. See R ami r ez v. B arnhar t , 372 F. 3d 546, 550- 51 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ; M att hew s , 239 F. 3d at589 n. 1. M cD ani el s chal l enges t he C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on atthe thi r d and fourt h s t eps of t he i nqui r y . She fi r s tar gues t hatt he A L J offe r ed no evi dence forhi s fi ndi ng thather im p airm en ts fail ed to m ee t or eq u al a li sted im p airm en t. S h e the n arg u es th at th e A L J’s d e c i s i o n f

a i l e d t o c o n s i d e rp r o b a t i v e me d i c a l e v i d e n c e . Fi n a l l y , s h e a r g u e s th a tth e ALJ m i s appl i ed the C om m i s s i oner ’ s r egul at i ons i n eval uat i ng hers ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s of pai n. W e di s cus s t hes e ar gum ent s i n turn. A. M cD an iel s ch ara cterizes the A L J’s th ir d step d eterm ination as “ alm o st a w o rd-f o rw o rd c o p yo f

th e e x a c t an a ly sis re

jec ted ” in B u rn e tt v . C o m m iss io n e r o f S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s t r at i on, 220 F. 3d 112 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . M cD ani el s ’ s B r . at9. A l t hough the4

w or di ng of the tw o deci s i ons i s s i m i l ar , thi s C our ti n J ones v. B arnhar tm ade c l earthatt he “part i cul arl anguage ” or“form at ” of the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on s houl d notbe gi ven talism a n ic s ig n if

ica n c e . 3 6 4 F .3 d 5 0 1 , 5 0 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e re lev a n t in q u iryis w h e th e r “ th e re is s u f

f icie n t d e v e lo p m e n t o f

th e re c o rd a n d e x p lan a tio n o f f in d in g s to perm i tm eani ngful r evi ew . ” I d. T he A L J ’ s anal y s i s i n J ones , though even t er s erthan the anal y s i s i n B ur net t , pas s ed must erbeca us e “the A L J ’ s deci s i on, r ead a s a w hol e, i l l us t r at es t hatt he A L J cons i der ed the appr opr i at e fa ct or s i n r eac hi ng the conc l us i on” underr evi ew . I d. U ndert he rul e of Burne t tas expl ai ned i n J ones , the A L J ’ s deci s i on atthe thi r d s t ep i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he A L J focus ed on the l i s t i ngs pert i nentt o t he m us cul os kel et al s y s t em, and w e agr ee w i t h t he C om m i s s i onerthatthe onl yr el evant l i st i ng i s sect i on 1. 04 . T he li st ed im pairm ent r equ i res evidence o f sensoryor r efl ex loss , s pi nal ar achnoi di t i s , oran i nabi l i t yt o ambul at e ef fec t i vel y . See 20 C . F. R . ch. I I I , pt . 404, s ubpt . P, app. 1, § 1. 04( A ) - ( C ) . M cD ani el s r epor t ed onl ynum bnes s i n herl efthand, not s ens or yorr efl ex l os s . See R ecor d at117. She w as neverdi agnos ed w i t h s pi nal a ra c h n o id iti s. W ith th e e x c e p tio n o f h e r f ra c tu re d a n k le, w h ich w a s n o t ex p e c ted to i m pai rherform or e than tw el ve mont hs , s he coul d ambul at e ef fec t i vel y . See i d. ( “H er gai tw as nor m al . ”) . Subst ant i al evi dence thus s uppor t s the A L J ’ s fi ndi ng that M c D a n iels ’s im p a irm e n ts d id n o t m e e t o r m e d ica llye q u a l a liste d im p a irm e n t.I n fac t , M cD ani el s her s el f contr adi ct ed the r epor tw hen s he ave r r ed thats he 1 “ca n’ tl i ftanyt hi ng” and “ can’ tbend. ” R ecor d at67. A s w e expl ai n bel ow , s ubs t ant i al evidence sup po rt s the A L J’ s fi nd i ng that M cD aniel s had o verst at ed h er i m pairm ents . 5 B. M c D a n iels a rg u e s th a t th e A L J’s a ss e ss m e n t o f h e r re sid u a l f

u n c tio n a l ca p a c ity ig n o re d p ro b a tiv e e v id e n c e a n d w a s w ith o u t f o u n d a tio n , b u t sh e c a n p o in t to little evi dence t hatt he A L J actual l yover l ooked ori m pr oper l ycons i der ed. C ont r aryt o her cl ai m t hatt he A L J “conc ede[ d] onl ythatappel l anthas cervi cal di s c di s eas e and a l um bar s t r ai n, ” M cD ani el s ’ s B r . at12, t he A L J found that“[t ] he obj ect i ve evi dence fr om 1997 re v e a led a h e rn iate d d isc a t C 5 -6 .” R e c o rd a t 1 4 . H is f in d in g th a t sh e c o u ld o c c a sio n a lly li ft fiftyp o u n d s an d fre q u en tl yli ft tw en ty -five p o u n d s fin d s su p p o rtin the rep o rto f D r. M i r anda. T he A L J gave D r . M i r anda’ s r epor t“gr eatw ei ght ” bec aus e i tw as

“ u n c o n tr a d ic te d ” a n d “ f u lly c o n s is te n t w ith th e e v id e n c e o f re c o rd .” R e c o rd a t 1 5 .

1 A ccor di ng t o M cD ani el s , herpas tr el evantw or k as a s ecur i t yguar d di d notr equi r e l i ft i ng anyw her e nea rfi ftypounds and fr equent l yr equi r ed l i ft i ng l es s than t en pounds . See R ecor d at68. T he A L J ’ s fi ndi ng t hatherback a nd neck pa i n w oul d notpr eventherfr om per form i ng t hi s w or k i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . M cD ani el s appea r s t o m i s under s t and the A L J ’ s fi ndi ng w i t h r es pectt o her t r i m al l eol arfr actur e. C ont r aryt o t he i m put at i on of herbr i ef, the A L J neverfound that t he fr actur e w as i ns uffi ci ent l ys ever e t o “i m pede s om e as pectof the abi l i t yt o per form one of the bas i c w or k- r el at ed func t i ons . ” M cD ani el s ’ s B r . at16. R ather , he found thatthe6

fr actur e w oul d notdi s abl e herform or e than tw el ve mont hs . See R ecor d at16 ( fi ndi ng t hatt he fr actur e w as “notdocument ed as a s ever e i m pai r m entexpec t ed t o m eetthe d u rati o n al req u ir em en t” (em p h asis ad d ed )). T hi s fi ndi ng i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . D r . R os s i ni r epor t ed thather fr actur e w as r es pondi ng w el l t o t r eatm entand w oul d di s abl e herforl es s than a y ear . See R ecor d at171. T he A L J l eftthe r ecor d open s o t hatM cD ani el s coul d s ubm i tfur t her evi dence , butnone w as for t hcomi ng. I n l i ghtof D r . R os s i ni ’ s unr ebut t ed r epor tand the rem ainin g ev iden ce o f re co rd, a rea so n ab le fa ct find er c o u ld ea sil yfin d that M cD an iel s’s fracture w ou l d n ot l i m i ther for m ore than tw el ve m on t hs. C. M cD ani el s ’ s ar gum entt hatt he A L J di d notpr oper l ycons i derhers ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s of pai n i s m er i t l es s . Farfr om i gnor i ng hert es t i m ony , the A L J cl ear l yfound that M cD an iel s “e x p erien ce s so m e p ain.” R ec o rd a t 15 . T h e A L J also fo u n d , h o w ev er, t hatt he r emai ni ng evi dence of r ecor d w as “i ncons i s t entw i t h an i ndi vi dual w i t h t he degr ee of

neck a nd back pa i n al l eged. ” I d. T hi s deci s i on w as m ade i n l i ghtof M cD an iel s’s d ail yac ti v it ies, the m ed ici n e sh e too k , an d the trea tm en t she rec eive d . In ot herw or ds , t he A L J cons i der ed the veryfac t or s i n Soci al Secur i t yR ul i ng 88- 13 that M cD ani el s cl ai m s he i gnor ed. See 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1529. Subst ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the A L J ’ s fi ndi ng thatM cD ani el s ’ s pai n w as not di s abl i ng. E ven i n t he i m m edi at e af t erm ath of heraut om obi l e ac ci dent , s he neve rs ought7

c h iro p ra c tic tre a tm e n t m o re th a n o n c e a m o n th . S h e re sp o n d e d w e ll t o e p id u ra l ste ro id in je c tio n s a n d p h y s ic a l th e ra p y , re p o rt in g s ig n if ic a n t im p ro v e m e n ts in h e r b a c k a n d n e c k . S e e R e c o rd a t 1 2 1 , 1 5 0 . P e rc o c e t re d u c e d h e r p a in w ith o u t se rio u s s id e e f f e c ts. D e sp ite h e r te stim o n yth a t sh e c o u ld sit f o r o n ly1 5 to 2 0 m in u tes a t a tim e a n d c o u ld n o t w a lk e v e n h a lf a b lo c k , h e r p a in d id n o t sto p h e r f ro m w a lk in g d o w n th e c a tw a lk in a c h a rity fas hi on s how . I n s hor t , the r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence thatM cD ani el s s uffe r ed s i gni fi cant pai n, buti tdoes notcompel t he fi ndi ng thatherpai n, w hen pr oper l ytr eat ed, w as di s abl i ng. III . A ft ercar eful cons i der at i on of M cD ani el s ’ s cl ai m s , w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he C om m i s s i oner ’ s fi ndi ng thats he w as notdi s abl ed. T he dec i s i on of t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch r eac hed the s ame concl us i on, i s aff i r m ed.