A ft erexami ni ng the 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 antthe 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 thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe 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 . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and c o n d itio n s o f

1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

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

### M ay17,2006 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 ALTA L. KLI TZ,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J O A NN E B. BA RN HA RT, C o m m iss io n e r o f

th e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s tr at i on,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 7112 ( D. C. No . CI V- 0 4 - 0 6 7 - S H) (E .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , M c KAY , and BROR BY , C i rcui tJudg es.

A l t a K l i t z appe al s fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derand j udgm entaff i r m i ng the fi nal deci s i on of the C om m i s s i onerof Soci al Secur i tydeny i ng her Suppl ement al Secur i tyI ncome benefi t s ( SSI) underT i t l e X V I of the Soci al- 2-

S e c u r i tyAc t . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 4 2 U. S . C. § 4 0 5 ( g ) a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we RE VE RS E a n d RE M AND. M s . K l i t z pr ot ect i vel yfi l ed an appl i cat i on forSSI on J une 14, 2002, all eg ing d isab il ityo n the b asis o f a sthm a, ch ron ic ob stru cti v e p u lm o n aryd isord er, and arthr i t i s . H erappl i cat i on w as deni ed i ni t i al l yand upon r econs i der at i on. She r eques t ed and r ece i ved a he ar i ng befor e an a dm i ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge ( A L J ) w ho found thatM s . K l i t z s uffe r s fr om s ever e chr oni c obs truct i ve l ung di s eas e butthe im p a irm e n t is n o t se v e re e n o u g h to m e e t o r e q u a l o n e o f th e im p a irm e n ts liste d in 2 0 C .F .R ., P a rt 4 0 4 , S u b p a rt P , A p p e n d ix 1 . B eca us e the A L J found thatM s . K l i t z has no r el evantpas tw or k, he p ro c e e d e d to s te p fiv e o f th e s e q u e n tia l e v a lu a tio n p ro c e s s , s ee Wi l l i am s v. B ow en , 844 F. 2d 748, 750- 52 ( 10t h C i r . 1988) ( expl ai ni ng fi ve- s t ep s equent i al p ro c e ss fo r e v a lu a tin g c laim s fo r d isa b ili tyb e n e fits), an d fo u n d th a t M s. K lit z r et ai ns the fol l ow i ng r es i dual funct i onal capa ci ty( R FC ) : “l i ftand/ orcarry10 po un ds occa si on al l yand 5 p ou nd s fr equ entl y ; st and and / or w al k 2 ou tof 8 ho urs; and s i t6 outof 8 hour s ; buts he ca nnotw or k i n envi r onm ent s w her e s he w oul d be ex p o sed to d u st. ” R . at 16 . A t th e h ea ri n g , the A L J ask ed a v o ca ti o n al ex p ert ( V E ) w hetherther e w er e anyj obs a per s on coul d per form i f the per s on had no pas tr el evantw or k butcoul d per form s edent aryw or k i n envi r onm ent s thatdi d not expos e the per s on t o r es pi r at oryi rr i t ant s s uch as dus t . T he V E t es t i fi ed thats uch a per s on coul d per form a var i etyof uns ki l l ed l aboroccupa t i ons : l amp shadeA l though the A L J pos ed tw o other , m or e r es tr i ct i ve hypothet i cal s t o the 1 V E , n e ith e r o f

th e m a re re lev a n t to th is a p p e a l.

- 3- as s embl er , cl i p fas t ener , s utur e w i nder , gol d burni s her , and food a nd bever age or der cl erk. Id. at140- 41. B as ed on the V E ’ s t es t i m ony , t he A L J found

1 M s . K l i t z notdi s abl ed ats t ep fi ve. T he A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed r evi ew , m aki ng the A L J ’ s deci s i on the C om m i s s i oner ’ s fi nal deci s i on. M s . K l i t z fi l ed a compl ai ntw i th t he di s tr i ctcourt , and byt he part i es ’ cons ent , t he mat t erw as s u b m itte d to a m a g is tr a te ju d g e w h o a ffir m e d th e C o m m is s io n e r’ s d e c is io n . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. “W e r evi ew the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on t o det erm i ne w hethert he fa ctual fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d and w hethert he corr ectl egal s t andar ds w er e appl i ed. ” D oya lv. B arnh art , 331 F. 3d 758, 760 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). “S u b sta n tial e v id e n c e is s u c h re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s a re a so n a b le m i nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ” Id. (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ).

“ [ B ]e c a u se o u r re v iew is b a se d o n th e re c o rd tak e n a s a w h o le, w e w ill m et i cul ous l yexami ne the r ecor d i n or dert o det erm i ne i f the evi dence s uppor t i ng the a g en cy ’s de cisi o n is sub stan ti al, takin g ‘i n to ac co u n t w h atev er in the rec o rd fai r l ydetr act s fr om i t s w ei ght . ’ ” Ham l i n v. B arnh art , 365 F. 3d 1208, 1214 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng Wa sh in g to n v . Sh a la la , 3 7 F . 3 d 1 4 3 7 , 1 4 3 9 (10 th C ir . 1994) ) . “W e maynei therr ew ei gh t he evi dence nors ubs t i tut e ourdi s cr et i on for thatof the [Com m i s s i oner ] . ” Kel l ey v . C hat er , 6 2 F . 3 d 3 3 5 , 3 3 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ).A n e b u lize r is “ [ a ] d e v ice u se d to re d u c e liq u id m e d ica tio n to e x tre m e ly 2 fi ne cl oudl i ke part i cl es ” and i s “us eful i n del i ver i ng m edi cat i on t o deepe rpart s of the r es pi r at orytr act . ” Stedm an ’s MedicalD i ct i on ary 1 1 8 4 (2 7 th e d . 2 0 0 0 ). M s . K l i t z us es hernebul i zert o admi ni s t eral but er ol s ul fat e. R . at87.

- 4- M s . K l i t z r ai s es onl yone i s s ue on appe al , thatthe A L J ’ s R FC fi ndi ng i s not s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence beca us e i tl acks a r equi r ementthats he us e a hom e nebul i zer per i odi cal l y dur i ng the w or k day . M s . K l i t z t es t i fi ed thats he 2 u s e d th e n e b u liz e r t w o o r t h re e d a y s a w e e k a n d tw o tim e s p e r d a yo n th o s e d a y s . R . a t 1 3 0 . S h e s ta te d th a t th e p ro c e s s to o k fif te e n to tw e n ty-fiv e m in u te s . Id. P ro g re ss n o tes in th e re c o rd re flec t th a t M s. K lit z w a s a d v ise d th a t sh e sh o u ld o b ta in a n e b u liz e r b e c a u s e it w a s “ m u c h b e tte r i n d e liv e ri n g m e d s th a n th e M D I,” i d. at88. A l though uncl earfr om t he r ecor d, an “M D I ” appa r ent l yi s a type of i nhal er . T he pr ogr es s not es al s o i ndi cat e thats he w as t o us e the nebul i zerat h o m e a n d th e in h a le r o n ly w h e n s h e w a s a w a yf ro m h o m e . Id. a t 8 6 , 8 7 . In m a k in g a n R F C fin d in g w h e n , as h e re , a m e d ica llyd e ter m in a b le i m pai r m enti m pos es envi r onm ent al r es tr i ct i ons , an A L J m us tcons i derany r es ul t i ng l i m i t at i ons and r es tr i ct i ons t hatm ayaffectotherw or k- r el at ed abi l i t i es a n d re d u c e a c la im a n t’ s a b ility to w o rk . See 20 C . F. R . § 416. 945( d) . A l though the A L J acknow l edged M s . K l i t z’ s us e of the nebul i zer , he neve raddr es s ed any effecti tm i ghthave on he rabi l i tyt o w or k. T he pr ogr es s not es i ndi cat e thatt he n e b u lize r w a s th e p re fe rre d tre a tm e n t at h o m e a n d th e in h a ler w a s to b e u se d o n ly w h e n sh e w a s a w a yf

ro m h o m e . It d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rilyfo llo w th a t M s. K lit z- 5-

coul d be aw ayfr om hom e fora ful l w or k dayw i thoutacc es s t o the nebul i zerand re lia n t o n ly o n th e in h a le r. O n r emand, the A L J s houl d devel op cert ai n det ai l s of M s . K l i t z’ s us e of he r h o m e n e b u lize r. F irst, itis u n c lea r w h e th e r h e r n e b u lize r is p o rta b le s u c h th a t it c a n b e u se d a w a yf

ro m th e h o m e . It ap p e a rs th a t ad m in iste rin g a lb u ter o l su lfa te w ith a n e b u liz e r i n v o lv e s c o n n e c tin g th e n e b u liz e r t o a c o m p re s s o r. See P hys i ci ans ’D es k Ref

er ence 1225, 3069 ( 57th ed. 2003) . T he pr es ence of a c o m p re ss o r su g g e sts th a t itm a yb e im p ra c tica b le fo r h e r to tra n sp o rt th e d e v ice to w o rk . Second, i ti s uncl earfr om the r ecor d w hetherM s . K l i t z’ s need t o us e the n e b u l i z e rtwi c e a d a yo n t h o s e d a y s wh e n s h e mu s tu s e i to c c u r s a tr a n d o m, uncontr ol l abl e t i m es , orw hethers he coul d us e i tbefor e w or k, dur i ng es t abl i s hed b re a k s, o r a f

ter w o rk in o rd e r to tre a t h e r c o n d iti o n e ffe c tiv e ly . T h e fif tee n to twe n ty - fi v e mi n u t e p r o c e s s o f u s i n g th e n e b u l i z e ro n e o rtwo t i me s a d a yo n two orthr ee da y s a w eek maybe di s rupt i ve of a nor m al w or k dayand affec ther a b ili tyto p e rfo rm th e jo b s th e V E id e n tifie d a n d o n w h ich th e A L J b a se d h is d e c is io n . See Eback v . C hat er , 94 F. 3d 410, 411- 12 ( 8th C i r . 1996) ( di s cus s i ng how the part i cul ar i t i es of a c l ai m ant ’ s need t o us e a ne bul i zercoul d affectthe ab il ityto p erfo rm all the d u ti es o f a job ). Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thats ubs t ant i al evi dence does not su p p o rt th e A L J’s R F C fin d in g . T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt is- 6-

REVERSED and the case is REM AND ED to th e d istric t co u rt w ith d ire c tio n s to r emand t he ca s e t o t he age ncyforfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s or der a n d ju d g m e n t. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge