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 9-16-2005 

# S immons 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 . 04-4232

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 " S immon s v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 536. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/536NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL THE U NI TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT C as e N o: 04- 4232 BI L L I E S I M M ONS v. JO A N N E B A R N H A R T , C o m m issi o n er, Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on B i l l i e E . S i m m on s, A ppel l ant

O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are D i s t r i ctC our tN o. : 02- C V - 01539 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e K entJ or dan Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember15, 2005 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , B A R R Y , a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember16, 2005) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . B i l l i e Si m m ons appl i ed i n M ar ch 1992 fordi s abi l i tybenef i t s underT i t l e I I andT h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 a n d 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 405( g) . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 s u p p le m e n ta l s e c u ri ty in c o m e (“ S S I” ) b e n e f its u n d e r T itle X V I o f

th e S o c ia l S e c u ri ty A c t. A n A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) deni ed Si m m ons ’ s appl i cat i on, butherr eques tfor r evi ew byt he A ppeal s C ounci l w as gr ant ed bec aus e the tr ans cr i ptof herfi r s thear i ng w as lo st. A f ter a se c o n d h e a rin g b e f o re th e sa m e A L J, S im m o n s’s a p p lica tio n f o r b e n e f its w as denied again on M ay3, 19 99 . W hen the A pp eal s C ou ncil den i ed h er s econ d reque st forr evi ew , Si m m ons fi l ed an a ppeal w i t h t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ct of D el aw ar e. I tgr ant ed the C om m i s s i oner ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , ther eby aff i r m i ng t he deni al of Si m m ons ’ s appl i cat i on forbenef i t s . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 1 Ju d icia l re v iew o f

th e d e n ial o f

a n a p p lica tio n f

o r S o c ial S e c u rityb e n e f its is l i m i t ed t o det erm i ni ng w hethert her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tthe C o m m iss io n e r’s d e c isio n . 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 i s “more than a s ci nt i l l a. I tm eans s uch r el evant evi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ” R i char ds on v. P er al es , 402 U . S. 389, 401 ( 1971) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on o m itted). Si m m ons w or ked fors event een y ear s as a ps y chi atr i c as s i s t anti n a s t at e ment al h o sp ital u n til sh e w a s a ss a u lted in 1 9 8 8 . S h e re c e iv e d w o rk e r’s c o m p e n sa tio n b e n e f its fora per i od of t i m e, and obt ai ned otherempl oym enti n 1989 as a cl erk i n a fl ow ers hop. T h is p o sitio n w a s n o t as p h y sic a llyd e m a n d in g a s h e r w o rk a t th e m e n tal h o sp ital a n d it3

a f f o rd e d h e r t h e f

le x ib ility s h e n e e d e d in lig h t o f h e r h u s b a n d ’s d e c lin in g h e a lth . A ccor di ng t o Si m m ons ’ s t es t i m ony , the w or k s he per form ed i n t he fl ow ers hop w as l i ght in n a tu re . A tt i m es , Si m m ons w or ked part - t i m e bec aus e of e i t herherhus band’ s heal t h ort he det er i or at i on of herl efthi p. E ventual l y , on O ct ober14, 1991, Si m m ons had a t ot al l eft hi p r epl ace m ent . O n M ar ch 2, 1992, D r . G el m an, Si m m ons ’ s or t hopedi c s ur geon, d o c u m e n ted th a t all o f

h e r p re o p e ra tiv e p a in h a d su b sid e d , an d h e re lea se d h e r to re tu rn to w o rk in A p ril w ith a tw e n ty -p o u n d w e ig h t re stric tio n . S h o rtlya f ter h e r a p p o in tm e n t w ith D r. G el m an at the b eginni ng of M arch, S i m m on s appli ed fo r di sabi l i t yand S S I benefit s, a l l e g i n g d i s a b i l i t y a s a r e s u l to f h e rh i p s u r g e r y. I n a fol l ow - up vi s i ti n J ul y1992, D r . G el m an document ed thatSi m m ons w as

“ d o i n g v e r ywe l l a n d h a s r e g a i n e d a v e r yp h y s i c a l a n d f u n c t i o n a l l i f

e s t y l e . ” Ats o me poi nt , Si m m ons r etur ned t o w or k atthe fl ow ers hop part - t i m e, w or ki ng unt i l l at e 1993 or ea rl y1 9 9 4 . In re sp o n se to an inq u iryfro m the D isab il ityD eterm ination S erv ices, D r. G e lm a n o p in e d th a t w h e n h e las t ev a lu a ted S im m o n s in Ju ly1 9 9 2 sh e “ w a s d o in g q u ite w el l ” and that“[b] as ed on mym os tr ece ntexami nat i on i n J ul yof 1992, I di d notfee l t hat B i l l ySi m m ons w as di s abl ed. ” A ft erSi m m ons ’ s hi p s ur gery , s he expe r i ence d pr obl ems w i t h hervoi ce. A l t hough she w as eval uated bym ult i ple phy si ci ans, no abn orm al i t i es w ere det ect ed. S he als o compl ai ned of hi p, l eg, l ow erback, and che s tpai n, as w el l as carpal tunnel type4

p ro b le m s . A c a rd ia c c a th e te ri z a tio n ru le d o u t a c a rd ia c e tio lo g yf o r t h e c h e s t p a in . Pul m onaryfunct i on t es t s and a c hes tx- r ayw er e norm al . D i agnos t i c s tudi es of hers pi ne rev ea led s o m e d eg en era ti v e c h an g es, bu t w ere g en era ll y“u n rem ark ab le” e x ce p t fo r a m ild b u lg in g lu m b a r d isc . S im m o n s “ re sp o n d e d w e ll” to tre a tm e n t o f h e r lo w b a c k p a in w ith ep idu ral bloc k s. In a p rog ress n o te da ted J an u ary1 9 9 8 , D r. T o w n sen d , S im m o n s’s t r eat i ng neur ol ogi s t , document ed thats he had a ful l r ange of m ot i on, a norm al gai t , and nei t hers ens or ynorm us cul ardefi ci t s . D r . T ow ns end ac know l edged thatSi m m ons had h e a d a c h e s , b u t o p in e d th a t “ [ s ]h e d o e s w e ll” w ith m e d ic a tio n . In A u g u st 1 9 9 5 , S im m o n s w a s re f e rre d to D r. Iv in s, a p sy c h o lo g ist. H is con sul t at i ve repo rti nd i cat ed thatS i m m on s r epo rt ed thatshe sust ai ned a head i njuryas a chi l d, t hats he w as uns t eadyon herfee tthr oughoutherl i fe, had done poor l yi n s chool and w as “neve rabl e t o keep a j ob forveryl ong. ” D r . I vi ns al s o document ed thatther e w as conce r n as t o w hetherSi m m ons ’ s voi ce pr obl ems w er e s econda r yt o a mi ni - s t r oke fr om anes t hes i a dur i ng herhi p s ur gery . A ft eradmi ni s t er i ng s ever al di agnos t i c t es t s , D r . I vi ns document ed thatSi m m ons funct i oned i n t he ave r age r ange of gener al i nt el l i gence , that s he had s om e mem or yi m pai r m ent , thats he had no s ens orydefi ci t s and thatherm ot or s t r ength w as i m pai r ed i n t he r i ghthand t o a degr ee, butw as ot herw i s e w i t hi n nor m al l i m i t s . D r . I vi ns opi ned thatSi m m ons had s ever e emot i onal di ffi cul t i es s econda r yt o her h e a d in ju rya n d h e r h ip su rg e ry , an d th a t sh e “ is n o t p re se n tlya b le to p e rf o rm a n ysu itab le gai nful empl oym ent . M s . Si m m ons i s di s abl ed. ”5

A s not ed above , t he tr ans cr i ptof the fi r s thear i ng w as l os t . A tthe s econd he ar i ng befor e the s ame A L J , Si m m ons t es t i fi ed thats he w as compl et el ydi s abl ed. She aff i r m ed t hat s he w as i n co nst ant pai n, dropp ed thi ng s becau se of h er carpal tun nel type p robl em s, had m em oryproblem s, exp eri enced head aches co nfini ng her t o b ed tw o to three day s a w e e k , w a s lim ited to sta n d in g f o r th irtym in u tes a n d sittin g f o r tw o h o u rs, a n d w a s u n a b le t o l i ftanyt hi ng heavy . T he A L J as ked Si m m ons , bas ed on the A L J ’ s not es fr om the ear l i erhear i ng, aboutcert ai n as pect s of Si m m ons ’ s pr evi ous t es t i m onyw hi ch i ndi cat ed t hats he w as qui t e ac t i ve and s ubj ectt o m i ni m al r es t r i ct i ons . Si m m ons confi r m ed thather pr evi ous t es t i m onyconce r ni ng herphy s i cal act i vi t i es had bee n acc ur at e, butaff i r m ed that h e r p h y s ic a l a b iliti e s a s o f th e d a te o f

th is la te r h e a ri n g w e re m o re lim ite d . T h e A L J c o n c lu d e d th a t alth o u g h S im m o n s’s d e g e n e ra tiv e jo in t d ise a se o f h e r h ip and l ow erback w er e s ever e i m pai r m ent s , thes e condi t i ons di d nots at i s fythe cr i t er i a of c e rt a in im p a ir m e n ts in A p p e n d ix 1 o f th e re g u la tio n s . See 20 C. F. R. Pa r t40 4, Sub pa r tP, Ap p e n d i x 1 . T h e AL J d i s c o u n t e d Dr . I v i n s ’ s o p i n i o n th a tS i mm o n s wa s d i s a b l e d . He expl ai ned thatD r . I vi ns ’ s opi ni on t hatSi m m ons ’ s head i nj uryas a chi l d had ca us ed m ul t i pl e l i m i t at i ons w as contr adi ct ed bythe fa ctthatSi m m ons had bee n abl e t o w or k for s event een y ear s as a ps y chi atr i c as s i s t ant . T he A L J r ej ect ed D r . I vi ns ’ s opi ni on that Si m m ons w as di s abl ed bec aus e i tw as i nt ernal l yi ncons i s t entw i t h hi s as s es s m entthat Si m m ons ’ s i nt el l ectual funct i oni ng w as nor m al and the fa ctthatthe r es ul t s of m anyof the te s ts w e re w ith in n o rm a l lim its . T h e A L J p a rt ia lly c re d ite d S im m o n s ’s te s tim o n y ,6

fi nd i ng her capab l e of li gh tw ork w i t h o ccasi on al po stural m aneu vers. B ecause these r e s t r i c t i o n s wer e c o mpa t i b l e wi t h h e rp a s tr e l e v a n twor k a s a f l o wers h o p c l e r k , th e ALJ concl uded s he w as notdi s abl ed. O n ap p ea l, S im m o n s arg u es th at th e A L J erred b ec au se sh e c o n side red n o n -reco rd evi dence , namel yt he A L J ’ s ow n not es of Si m m ons ’ s t es t i m onyfr om the fi r s thear i ng. She cont ends t hatt he cons i der at i on of non- r ecor d evi dence depr i ves a cl ai m antof the o p p o rt u n ity to c ro s s -e x a m in e w itn e s s e s o r t o p re s e n t r e b u tta l e v id e n c e . See Burkhar tv. B ow en , 856 F. 2d 1335, 1341 ( 9t h C i r . 1988) . W e do nott ake i s s ue w i t h t hi s gener al pr opos i t i on. U nl i ke B urkha rt , how ever , the r ecor d i n t hi s cas e cont ai ns t es t i m oni al evi dence fr om Si m m ons her s el f conf i r m i ng thatthi s non- r ecor d evi dence w as acc ur at e at t he t i m e i tw as m ade. Fort hatr eas on, i tw as noti m pr operforthe A L J t o obs erve the di s par i t ybetw een Si m m ons ’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng herphy s i cal act i vi t i es atthe t i m e of the f ir s t h e a ri n g a n d h e r p h y s ic a l a b iliti e s a t th e la tte r d a te . See 20 C . F. R . § 404. 929 (e s ta b lis h in g th a t a n A L J m u s t r e n d e r “ a d e c is io n b a s e d o n th e h e a ri n g re c o rd ” ). Si m m ons al s o cont ends t hatt he A L J err ed bydi s count i ng D r . I vi ns ’ s opi ni on t hat s he w as di s abl ed, and byfi ndi ng Si m m ons onl ypart i al l ycr edi bl e. W e fi nd no err orby th e A L J in a sm u c h a s s h e e x p lain e d th a t D r. Iv in s’s o p in io n w a s c o n tra d icte d b yb o th m e d ic a l e v id e n c e a n d S im m o n s ’s o w n te s tim o n ya b o u t h e r c a p a b iliti e s o v e r t h e y e a rs . P l um m er , 186 F. 3d at429 ( r ei t er at i ng thata phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on m aybe r ej ect ed or d isc o u n ted o n th e b a sis o f c o n tra d icto rym e d ica l ev id e n c e ); N ew hous e v. Heckl er , 7537

F. 2d 283, 286 ( 3d C i r . 1985) . N ordo w e fi nd anyerr ori n t he w ei ghtthe A L J acc or ded Si m m ons ’ s t es t i m ony . Si m m ons ’ s t es t i m onyw as appr opr i at el ydi s count ed bec aus e i tw as contr adi ct ed bybot h t he medi cal evi dence and Si m m ons ’ s r epor t s of herl i m i t at i ons over th e y e a rs . Fer

gus on v. Schw ei ker , 765 F. 2d 31, 37 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( obs ervi ng thatthe w ei ghtacc or ded s ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s m ayvarydependi ng on t he ext entt o w hi ch they ar e s uppor t ed bym edi cal evi dence ) . B yfi ndi ng thatSi m m ons w as r es t r i ct ed t o l i ght w or k, t he A L J acc or ded gr eatw ei ghtt o por t i ons of Si m m ons ’ s t es t i m onyand ac count ed fo r th e li m it ati o n s im p o sed b yh er o rth o p ed ic pro b lem s. B ec au se th o se re str ict ion s w ere compat i bl e w i t h herpas tr el evantw or k as fl ow ers hop cl erk, ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence to su p p o rt th e A L J’s c o n c lu sio n th a t S im m o n s w a s n o t d isa b led u n d e r th e S o c ial S e c u rity A c t. Si m m ons as s ert s , how ever , t hatthe A L J ’ s deci s i on i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evidence b ecause the A L J fai l ed to dev el op the d et ai l s of he r pastrel evan tw ork as a f lo w e r sh o p c ler k , an d to tak e in to a c c o u n t b o th h e r m e n tal lim itatio n s a n d h e r n e e d to avoi d hum i d condi t i ons . T hi s cont ent i on i s w i t houtm er i t . A tthe s econd he ar i ng, S im m o n s d e s c ri b e d th e e x e rt io n a l d e m a n d s o f h e r w o rk a s a f

lo w e r s h o p c le rk a s lig h t. A s t he D i s t r i ctJ udge expl ai ned, hum i di t yw as neverci t ed byanyof hertr eat i ng phy s i ci ans as a r es t r i ct i on and ther e w as no m edi cal evi dence , bey ond t he opi ni on of a non- exami ni ng phy s i ci an, t o s uppor ts uch a r es t r i ct i on. I ndeed, herpul m onaryfunct i on t es t s and che s tx- r ayw er e norm al . T he A L J expl ai ned thatSi m m ons ’ s al l eged ment allim itatio n s d id n o t p re c lu d e e m p lo ym e n t in lig h t o f S im m o n s’s a c tiv itylev e l as se t f o rth in h er d isab il ityrep o rtan d h er testi m o n y . In f ac t, S im m o n s testi fied that sh e h ad m em o ry pr obl ems i n 1992. Y ett he r ecor d s how s thats he w as abl e t o r eturn t o w or k i n t he fl ow er s hop and t o cont i nue herempl oym entfora per i od of t i m e. I n s um , w e conc l ude thatt her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o s uppor tt he A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hatSi m m ons i s notdi s abl ed. W e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof the D istric t C o u rt.