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 4-18-2005 

# W imb e rl y 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 . 04-2509

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 " W imbe rly v . C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1344. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1344NOT 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- 2509

CLA RK W I M BERLY A p p e llan t

v. J OA NN E B. BA RN HA RT, CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY

ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S DI S T RI CT CO UR T F OR T HE

E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA D i s t r i ctC our tN o. : 03- cv- 03963 D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge: T he H onor abl e Fr ankl i n S. V an A ntw erpen

Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o L A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 29, 2005 B efore: A L ITO , S M ITH , and R O S E N N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 18, 2005)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

P E R C U R I A M: A s w e w ri te o n ly f

o r t h e p a rt ie s in v o lv e d , w e w ill n o t r e s ta te th e e v id e n c e b e lo w . W e hol d thatt he A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) comm i t t ed no l egal err or s and that th e c o n c lu sio n th a t W im b e rlyw a s n o t d isa b led w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e S o c ial S e c u rity A ctdur i ng t he per i od fr om J ul y20, 1998, t o M ay1, 2000, i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . W e ther efor e af fi r m t he O ct ober8, 2004, or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tdeny i ng W i m ber l y ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand gr ant i ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s m ot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t. W i m ber l y ’ s appea l pr ocee ds on t hr ee gr ounds . Fi r s t , he cl ai m s thatthe A L J err ed i n notacc or di ng contr ol l i ng w ei ghtt o t he t es t i m onyof hi s tr eat i ng phy s i ci an, D r . C har l es B r i dges . Second, he cl ai m s t hatt he A L J err ed i n cal cul at i ng hi s R es i dual Funct i onal C a p a c ity(“ R F C ” ), d e sp ite th e a ss ista n c e o f a v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt, b e c a u se th e im p a c t o f h is o b esity , h is subjecti v e c o m p lai n ts of p ain, an d the s ide-e ff

ec ts of h is m ed icati o n s w ere nev er consi dered. F i nall y , he clai m s that he w as denied a fairheari ng and revi ew becau se the tr anscri pt cont ai ns several “i nau dibl e” entr i es. W i m ber l ycl ai m s t hatt he A L J s houl d have a ccor ded contr ol l i ng w ei ghtt o t he te s tim o n yo f

h is tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n , D r. B ri d g e s . U n d e r 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 7 (d )( 2 ), a tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on i s ent i t l ed t o contr ol l i ng w ei ghti f i ti s “w el l - s uppor t ed by m edi cal l yacc ept abl e cl i ni cal and l abor at orydi agnos t i c t echni ques and i s noti ncons i s t ent w ith th e o th e r su b sta n tial e v id e n c e ” in th e re c o rd . D r. B rid g e s h a s tre a ted W im b e rly3

s i nce 1982, and i n t he abs ence of otherr el evantevi dence , hi s opi ni on thatW i m ber l yw as d isab led w o u ld b e e n ti tl ed to co n tr o ll ing w eigh t. T h e A L J n o ted, ho w ev er, th at D r. B r i dges ’ s t es t i m onynotonl yconfl i ct ed w i t h t he vi ew s of otherdoct or s and ther api s t s , but w as i t s el f i nt ernal l yi ncons i s t ent . W hi l e w e appr eci at e W i m ber l y ’ s ar gum entthat di ffe r ence s i n t he form s fi l l ed outbyD r . B r i dges contr i but ed t o vary i ng as s es s m ent s , t he A L J’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t D r. B rid g e s p ro v id e d in c o n sis ten t o p in io n s th a t co n f licte d w ith the di agnos i s and tr eatm entpl ans pr offe r ed byot herphy s i ci ans adequa t el ys uppor t s t he d e c isio n n o t to a c c o rd h is o p in io n c o n tro lli n g w e ig h t. T he A L J concl uded thatW i m ber l ypos s es s ed the R FC t o per form a s i gni fi cant r a n g e o f s e d e n t a r ywo r k a n d t h e r e f o r e wa s n o tu n d e ra d i s a b i l i t yd u r i n g th e r e l e v a n tt i me per i od. T hi s concl us i on w as r eac hed bypos i ng a s er i es of hypot het i cal s t o vocat i onal expert s w ho agr eed thatj obs exi s t ed fors om eone l i ke W i m ber l yw ho i s capa bl e of l i ft i ng ten p o u n d s a n d a ltern a tin g f ro m a sittin g to a sta n d in g p o sitio n e v e ry3 0 m in u tes . T h is concl us i on i s notunderm i ned byt he A L J ’ s fai l ur e t o acc ountfornon- exert i onal i m pai rm ent s beca us e the A L J s peci fi cal l ycons i der ed W i m ber l y ’ s compl ai nt s of pai n, d izzine ss, and d row sine ss an d co n clud ed that theylack ed cre d ibil ityinso fa r as the yw ere i ncons i s t entw i t h t he cons ervat i ve cour s e of tr eatm entpr es cr i bed byhi s phy s i ci ans . See 20 C . F. R . 404. 1529( c) ( 3) . B eca us e the A L J s etfor t h a r eas oned bas i s , gr ounded i n t he r ecor d, forconcl udi ng t hatW i m ber l y ’ s compl ai nt s w er e notcr edi bl e, thi s por t i on of the deci s i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . See Thom ps on v. B arnhar t , 281 F. Supp. 2d4

7 7 0 , 7 8 0 -81 (E . D . P a. 20 0 3 ). N o r d o e s th e f

a c t o f W im b e rl y ’s o b e s ity u n d e rm in e th e A L J ’s R F C a n a lysis . W i m berl yi s corr ecti n arguing that20 C . F . R . 40 4. 15 29 (c) i m po ses a br oad du t yon A L Js t o eval uat e the i nt ens i t yand per s i s t ence of a c l ai m ant ’ s s ym pt om s , H art r anftv. A pfel , 181 F. 3d 358, 362 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , and al s o i n not i ng thatSoci al Secur i t yR ul i ng 02- 1p i ns truct s A L J s t o us e thei row n “j udgm entt o es t abl i s h t he pr es ence of obes i t ybas ed on the medi cal fi ndi ngs and otherevi dence i n t he ca s e r ecor d, even i f a tr eat i ng orexami ni ng s ou r c e ha s no ti nd i c a t e d a di a gn os i s of ob e s i t y . ” W e no t e , ho w e ve r , tha tno t hi ng i n SSR 0 2 - 1 p c o m p e l s a f

i n d i n g o f o b e s i t y i n th e a b s e n c e o f a n u n c o n t r o v e r t e d d i a g n o s i s b y a ph y s i c i a n who ha s e xa mi ne d the c l a i mant . The i s s ue on a pp e a l turns on the RFC a n a ly sis , h o w e v e r, n o t o n w h e th e r W im b e rlyw a s o b e se . A s th e A L J s tate d in h is deci s i on, ther e i s no m edi cal evi dence i n t he r ecor d as s oci at i ng the cl ai m ant ’ s appar ent o b e sityw ith a n yf

u n c tio n a l li m itatio n , n o r d id W im b e rlye v e r a ttribu te a n yd isa b ili tyto h i s we i g h t . Th e d u t yt o e v a l u a t e a c l a i ma n t ’ s s ymp t o ms i mp o s e d b y2 0 C. F . R. 4 0 4 .1 5 2 9 (c ) d o e s n o t e x te n d to g u e s s in g w h a t th e im p a c t o f th o s e s ym p to m s m a yb e . R ather , 20 C . F. R . 404. 1512( c) and 20 C . F. R . 404. 1545( a) ( 3) expl i ci t l yi m pos e on the cl ai m antthe bur den of f ur ni s hi ng evi dence s uppor t i ng the exi s t ence of a c ondi t i on and th e e f f e c t o f th a t co n d iti o n o n th e c laim a n t’s a b ili tyto w o rk o n a su sta in e d b a sis . W h ile the h ypo theti cal s posed to vo cat i on al exp ert s byan A L J duri ng the R F C analy si s “m ust r efl ectal l of a c l ai m ant ’ s i m pai r m ent s thatar e s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d, ” C hrupcal a v.5

H eckl er , 829 F. 2d 1269, 1276 ( 3d C i r . 1987) , a condi t i on thatdoes notr es ul ti n any funct i onal i m pai r m enti s notr el evantt o t he R FC anal y s i s . T he A L J ’ s concl us i on thatt he m edi cal r ecor d di d nots how t hatW i m ber l y ’ s w ei ghtr es ul t ed i n anyfunct i onal l i m i t at i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , and ther efor e the hypothet i cal s pos ed dur i ng the R F C analy si s adequ at el yrefl ect ed all of clai m ant’ s i m pairm ents . F in a lly , w e w ill n o t co n sid e r W im b e rly ’s d u e p ro c e ss c laim b a se d o n in a u d ib le om i s s i ons found i n t he hea r i ng t r ans cr i ptbeca us e he f ai l ed t o r ai s e thi s i s s ue i n t he D i s tr i ctC our t . K r y s zt ofor s ki v. C hat er , 55 F. 3d 857, 860- 61 ( 3d C i r . 1995) . T he for ce of K ry s z t of or s ki i s un a ff

e c t e d b yt he Sup r e me Cour t ’ s de c i s i on i n Si ms v . A pf e l , 53 0 U. S. 103 ( 2000) . T he hol di ng i n Si m s t hata Soci al Secur i t ycl ai m anti s notbarr ed fr om pr es ent i ng ar gum ent s t o t he court s thatw er e notr ai s ed i n admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs does n o t e x te n d to a rg u m e n ts n o t p re s e n te d in a d v e rs a ri a l p ro c e e d in g s in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . S ee g en era ll yG ass v . V ir g in Island s T elep h o n e C o rp., 3 1 1 F . 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). F o rt h e a b o v e r e a s o n s , we a f f i r m.