2008 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 10-30-2008 

# J ones 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 . 07-4433

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_2008

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 2008 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 " J one s v . C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 295. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/295NOT 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. 07- 4433

____________ CH A W N I E J O N ES, A ppel l ant

v. CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cv- 00790) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A l an N . B l och

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober2, 2008 B e f o re : F IS H E R , C H A G A R E S a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: O ct ober30, 2008)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________B yl ett erdat ed J ul y3, 2002, the A ppeal s C ounci l r evi s ed i t s det erm i nat i on of 1 M a r c h 2 2 , 2 0 0 2 t o c o r r e c ta typ o g r a p h i c a l e rr o r , a n d g r a n t e d J o n e s a n a d d i t i o n a l 3 0 d a ys t o r es pond. 2 H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . C haw ni e J ones appea l s an or derof the D i s tr i ctC our taff i r m i ng the dec i s i on of an A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( A L J ) deny i ng herappl i cat i on forD i s abi l i tyI ns ur ance Be n e f i t s a n d S u p p l e me n t a l S e c u r i tyI n c o me . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I . T he pr ocedur al hi s t oryof thi s cas e i s convol ut ed. T her efor e, w e w i l l expl ai n t he pr ocee di ngs des pi t e the fa ctthatw e w r i t e onl yforthe part i es i n thi s notpr ece dent i al opi ni on. Jo n es’s f ir st he aring w as h eld b ef o re A L J E ll iottB u n ce o n N o v em b er 8 , 2 0 0 1 . In a dec i s i on dat ed J anuary23, 2002, A L J B unce rul ed i n favorof J ones and hel d thats he w a s d isa b led a s o f

O c to b e r 4 , 2 0 0 0 . T h is d e c isio n w a s v a c a ted b yth e A p p e a ls C o u n c il on M ar ch 22, 2002, how ever . T he A ppeal s C ounci l hel d thatthe A L J ’ s deci s i on w as not s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence beca us e: ( 1) the A L J ’ s concl us i on thatJ ones l acke d t he r es i dual funct i onal capa ci ty( R FC ) t o per form a ful l r ange of s edent aryw or k di d not a d d re ss h o w Jo n e s’s p ro b lem w ith d ro w sin e ss c a u se s th a t li m itatio n ; an d (2 ) th e A L J d id notexpl ai n how J ones ’ s m oder at e di ffi cul tym ai nt ai ni ng conce ntr at i on, per s i s t ence , and p a c e p r e c l u d e d a l l w o r k a c t i v i ty. 13

B yor derdat ed Sept ember5, 2002, the A ppeal s C ounci l r emanded the ca s e, or der i ng the A L J t o: ( 1) eval uat e J ones ’ s s ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s ; ( 2) gi ve further cons i der at i on t o J ones ’ s m axi m um R FC w i th s peci fi c r efe r ence t o r ecor d evi dence ; ( 3) o b tai n ev iden ce fro m a m ed ical ex p ert; an d (4) o b tai n test im o n yfro m a v o ca ti o n al ex p ert (V E ). U pon r emand, A L J B unce he l d a s econd he ar i ng on February3, 2003 atw hi ch J o n e s a n d a me d i c a l e x p e r tt e s t i f i e d . Th i s t i me , b yd e c i s i o n d a t e d M a r c h 2 6 , 2 0 0 3 , ALJ B unce rul ed aga i ns tJ ones . A ft erm aki ng an adve r s e cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on r egar di ng J ones ’ s cl ai m ed l i m i t at i ons , the A L J hel d thatJ ones had the R FC t o per form a s i gni fi cant range o f l i gh tw ork, w i th cert ai n restri ct i on s. O nce a gai n, the A ppeal s C ounci l vaca t ed and r emanded the ca s e byor derdat ed M ar ch 26, 2004. T he A ppeal s C ounci l found thatthe A L J ’ s deci s i on nei thercont ai ned “s uffi ci entr at i onal e w i th s peci fi c r efe r ence t o evi dence i n s uppor tof the as s es s ed l i m i t at i ons ” noreval uat ed the evi dence fr om M i t chel l S. Fel der , M . D . ( the exa m i ni ng s our ce) , w hi ch w as i ncons i s t entw i th J ones ’ s R FC . T he A ppeal s C ounci l al s o faul t ed the d e c isio n f

o r n o t in c lu d in g a n a d e q u a te e v a lu a tio n o f Jo n e s’s su b

jec tiv e c o m p lain ts c o n s is te n t w ith 2 0 C .F .R . § § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 9 a n d 4 1 6 .9 2 9 a n d S o c ia l S e c u ri ty R u lin g 9 6 -7 p . B e c a u se th e c a se h a d b e e n h e a rd tw ice a lre a d yb yA L J B u n c e , the A p p e a ls C o u n c il as s i gned a ne w A L J t o hearthe ca s e on r emand.4

A f t e rth e s e c o n d r e m a n d o r d e r , th e c a s e w a s a s s i g n e d t o A L J W i l l i a m K e n w o r th y, w ho hel d a hea r i ng on Sept ember9, 2004, atw hi ch J ones and a V E t es t i fi ed. B ydeci s i on dat ed O ct ober15, 2004, A L J K enw or thyfound thatJ ones w as notdi s abl ed bec aus e s he re ta in e d th e R F C to p e rf o rm a s ig n if

ic a n t r a n g e o f

lig h t w o rk , w ith c e rt a in re s tr ic tio n s . L i ke A L J B unce i n t he s econd he ar i ng, A L J K enw or thyfound thatJ ones ’ s al l egat i ons r e g a r d i n g h e rl i mi t a t i o n s wer e n o te n t i r e l yc r e d i b l e . As p a r to f h i s d e c i s i o n , ALJ K enw or thynot ed thatJ ones ’ s r epr es ent at i ve had r eques t ed t i m e t o s ubm i ta s t at ement fr om J ones ’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci an, D r . L at on, butfai l ed t o do s o. B eca us e s uch i nform at i on had i n fac tbeen s ubm i t t ed byexpr es s m ai l , how ever , A L J K enw or thyi s s ued an a m ended d ec isi o n o n M arc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 . A fter co n side ri n g the in fo rm ati o n su b m itted b yJo n es’s r epr es ent at i ve af

t erthe thi r d hear i ng, A L J K enw or thyr eaf fi r m ed hi s pr i ordeci s i on, fi ndi ng thatD r . L at on’ s opi ni on s uffe r ed fr om tw o defi ci enci es : ( 1) i tw as es s ent i al l yan opi ni on thatJ ones cannotw or k, w hi ch i s a dec i s i on r es erved t o the C om m i s s i onerunder 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1527( e) ; and ( 2) i tw as i ncons i s t entw i th the medi cal r ecor d. J ones agai n r eques t ed r evi ew bythe A ppeal s C ounci l . T hi s t i m e, on A pr i l 14, 2 0 0 6 , th e Ap p e a l s Co u n c i l i s s u e d a n o t i c e d e n y i n g th e r e q u e s tf o rr e v i e w. H avi ng exhaus t ed heradmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , J ones fi l ed a c i vi l act i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our t , w hi ch gr ant ed the C om m i s s i oner ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton Sept ember25, 2007. J ones fi l ed a t i m el yappea l and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291.5 II. J ones r ai s es var i ous ar gum ent s on appea l . She focus es pr i m ar i l yon the handl i ng of the t es t i m onyof D r . D ani el N ackl ey , w ho t es t i fi ed atthe s econd a dm i ni s tr at i ve hea r i ng that Jo n es m et L ist ing 1 1 . 0 3 (E p il ep sy ). Jo n es c lai m s tha t th e A L J’s rejecti o n o f D r. N ackl ey ’ s opi ni on i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . I n addi t i on, J ones cl ai m s t hat A L J K enw or thyerr ed i n r el y i ng upon D r . N ackl ey ’ s t es t i m onyatthe s econd he ar i ng w ith o u t e n s u ri n g th a t h e re v ie w e d 1 2 0 p a g e s o f re c o rd s th a t w e re s u b m itte d th e re a f te r. F inally , Jo n es a rgu es th at A L J K en w o rth y ’s de cisi o n m isr ep rese n ts D r. N ac k ley ’s t es t i m onybeca us e he ne verr etr act ed hi s opi ni on thatJ ones m etL i s t i ng 11. 03. Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e fi nd thes e ar gum ent s unper s uas i ve. A . D r. N ac k leytest ifi ed at th e se co n d ad m inistrati v e h ea ri n g h eld b yA L J B u n ce . In herbr i ef, J ones apt l ynot es thatD r . N ackl ey ’ s t es t i m onyw as “s om ew hatconfus i ng. ” I ndeed, w hen A L J B unce a s ked D r . N ackl eyw hetherJ ones m eta Li s t i ng, he r es ponded: “[h] ercondi t i on does notm eetorequal the t extof the i m pai r m ent s l i s t ed i n the C om m i s s i oner ’ s l i s t i ng. ” ( R . 607) . A ft erthe A L J ’ s nextques t i on, D r . N ackl ey r es ponded thatJ ones has a di agnos i s of nar col eps yand “I thi nk hercondi t i on m eet s an equi val encyof one of

the l i s t i ngs . ” I

d. W h en A L J B u n ce ask ed w h ich L ist ing , D r. N ackl eyr es ponded “11. 03, w hi ch i s the l i s t i ng forepi l eps y . ” I d. at608. W hen as ked for s uppor ti n t he r ecor d forthi s opi ni on, D r . N ackl eyr efe r ence d t es t s fr om A pr i l , M ay , and6

Sept emberof 1999, al l of w hi ch pr edat ed J ones ’ s al l eged ons etdat e as s he w as w or ki ng re g u la rl yd u ri n g th o s e m o n th s . I d. a t6 0 9 - 1 0 . Dr . Na c k l e yth e n n o t e d th a t“ th e r e i s s o me di ver gence i n s om e of the medi cal exhi bi t s ” and obs erved thatJ ones had bee n w or ki ng, d id n o t r e q u e s t a d

ju s tm e n ts in h e r s c h e d u le , a n d s u s ta in e d e m p lo ym e n t. Id . a t 6 1 0 -6 1 1 . D r . N ackl eyconcl uded bys t at i ng thatJ ones ’ s condi t i on r equi r ed furthereval uat i on and th a t s h e s h o u ld b e s e e n b ya n e u ro lo g is t. Id . at612. I n l i g h to f

th e f o r e g o i n g , a ts t e p th r e e o f th e f i v e - s t e p e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s , ALJ B unce r ej ect ed D r . N ackl ey ’ s concl us i on thatJ ones m etL i s t i ng 11. 03 as uns uppor t ed by th e re c o rd . Id . at361. W e have car eful l yr evi ew ed A L J B unce’ s concl us i ons and fi nd them suppor t ed i n t he r ecor d forthe r eas ons m ent i oned i n hi s deci s i on atpages 361- 62. B . J ones al s o cl ai m s pr ocedur al err or , as s ert i ng thatA L J K enw or thyvi ol at ed the H ear i ngs and A ppeal s L aw M anual ( H A L L E X ) I - 2- 539( A ) , w hi ch r equi r es m edi cal e x a m in e rs to a d d re ss a ll m e d ica l ev id e n c e o f re c o rd . H e re , D r. N a c k ley did c o n sid e r a ll m edi cal evi dence of r ecor d as of the s econd he ar i ng. T hus , the ques t i on becomes w hether A L J K enw or thyerr ed byr evi ew i ng and cons i der i ng D r . N ackl ey ’ s t es t i m onyatthe s econd he ar i ng w i thoutr eca l l i ng hi m t o eval uat e the 120 page s of m edi cal r ecor ds J ones su b m itt e d th e re a f

ter . Jo n e s h a s n o t cite d , an d c a n n o t cite , an yth in g in th a t su b m iss io n to change the fa ctthatD r . N ackl eyr ever s ed cour s e af t erhe l earned thatthe 1999 r ecor ds upon w hi ch he r el i ed pr edat ed J ones ’ s ons etdat e and w er e cr eat ed w hi l e s he w as7

g ainf u ll yem p loy ed . In li g h t of this fac t, A L J K en w o rth yw as u n d er n o d u tyto rec all D r. N a c k le ya n d J o n e s ’s re q u e s t f o r r e m a n d m u s t f

a il. See R utherf

ord v. Ba rnha rt , 399 F. 3d 5 4 6 , 5 5 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). C . Jo n es a lso c lai m s tha t A L J K en w o rth yerred b yrely ing u p o n D r. N ac k ley ’s t es t i m onyatthe s econd he ar i ng w i thoutexpl ai ni ng the natur e of hi s r evi ew . W e di s agr ee b ec au se w e tak e the A L J at h is w o rd w h en h e w rote tha t he re v iew ed D r. N ac k ley ’s t es t i m onyand conc urr ed i n “the r eas ons expr es s ed byJ udge B unce f orr ej ect i ng that opi ni on i n vi ew of the equi vocat i on byD r . N ackl eyconce rni ng the copi ous cons um pt i on of ca ffe i nat ed beve r ages and the abs ence of an a dequat e pr ogr am of sl eep hy gi ene. ” (R . 3 1 ). F o r th e sa m e re aso n s ex p resse d relati v e to A L J B u n ce ’s de cisi o n , the re co rd cont ai ns s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tA L J K enw or thy ’ s concl us i on. III . W e conc l ude byaddr es s i ng tw o poi nt s . Fi r s t , contr aryt o a conc ern expr es s ed by J ones i n herbr i ef, the C om m i s s i onerhas conce ded thatherdat e l as ti ns ur ed forpurpos es o f D IB is D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 , n o t D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 . (R . 4 0 2 -0 3 ). S e c o n d , w e w o u ld be r emi s s i f w e di d notacknow l edge the frus tr at i on and di s appoi nt m entthatJ ones undoubt edl yexper i ence d i n l i ghtof the convol ut ed pr ocedur al hi s t oryof the ca s e. B ut ourt as k on appea l i s t o cons i derw hetherthe age ncy ’ s deci s i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v i d e n c e . F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d h e r e i n , we f i n d n o e rr o ra n d wi l l a f f i r m.