NOT 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. 09- 3507

____________ T IM O T H Y D . D O U G H E R T Y , A ppel l ant

v. M I CH AEL J . ASTRU E, 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. 08- cv- 00077) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G us t ave D i amond

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

M ay19, 2010 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , H A R D IM A N a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges .

Fi l ed: M ay24, 2010

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . §§ 405( g) and 1 1383( c) ( 3) , and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . T i m othyD . D oughertyappea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s um m aryj udgm entaff i r m i ng th e d e c isio n o f

a n A d m in istra tiv e L a w Ju d g e (A L J) d e n y in g h is c laim f o r S o c ial S e c u rity D isa b ili tyIn su ra n c e B e n e f its (D IB ) a n d S u p p lem e n tal S e c u rityIn c o m e (S S I). W e w ill a f f i r m. 1 I. B eca us e w e w r i t e forthe part i es , w e r ecountonl ythe es s ent i al fac t s and pr ocedur al h is to ry. T h e C o m m is s io n e r c o n s id e rs a p p lic a tio n s f o r D IB a n d S S I i n a f

iv e -s te p p ro c e s s . See 2 0 C . F . R . § § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 0 , 4 1 6 . 9 2 0 . D o u g h erty ’s ap p li ca ti o n w as d en ied a t st ep fo u r, w h e n th e A L J f

o u n d D o u g h e rt yc o u ld p e rf o rm h is p a s t r e le v a n t w o rk . See i d. § § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 0 (a)(4)(v i) , 4 1 6 . 9 2 0 (a)(4)(v i) . L ik e th e D istric t C o u rt, w e re v iew th e A L J’s d e c isio n o n lyto d e ter m in e w h e th e r it i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) , w hi ch i s “l es s than a pr eponder ance of the evi dence butm or e than a mer e s ci nt i l l a. ” Jes ur um v. Sec’ y of U. S. D ep’tof H

ealth a ndH

um an Servs. , 48 F. 3d 114, 117 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( ci t i ng R i char ds on v. P er al es , 4 0 2 U . S . 3 8 9 , 4 0 1 (19 7 1 )).D ougherty ’ s appl i cat i on does i ndi cat e thathe “s om et i m es ” r es t s w hi l e s hoppi ng. 2 3 II. T he A L J found thatD oughertycoul d r eturn t o w or k atthe medi um l evel of exert i on, s ubj ectt o cert ai n l i m i t at i ons . D ougherty ’ s appea l turns on the ques t i on of w hetherhe w as abl e t o per form the s i x hour s perdayof w al ki ng ors t andi ng r equi r ed for s u c h w o rk . See 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1567( b) ( defi ni ng “l i ghtw or k, ” w hi ch i s a l es s er i ncl uded ca t egoryof m edi um w or k) ; Soc. Sec. R ep. 83- 10, 1983 W L 31251 ( S. S. A . 1983) (a rticu latin g six -h o u r re q u ire m e n t). T h e c ru x o f D o u g h e rty ’s a rg u m e n t is th a t h is u n re b u tted tes tim o n ya s to h is d if f icu lti e s w a lk in g a n d sta n d in g , w h e n c o m b in e d w ith h is d iag n o sis o f

d e g e n e ra tiv e jo in t d ise a se o f th e lef t k n e e , req u ire d a f

in d in g th a t h e c o u ld notr eturn t o m edi um w or k. I n s uppor tof hi s ar gum ent , D oughertyci t es ours t at ement that“w her e a c l ai m ant ’ s t es t i m onyas t o pai n i s r eas onabl ys uppor t ed bym edi cal evi dence , t he A L J m aynotdi s countcl ai m ant ’ s pai n w i thoutcontr arym edi cal evi dence . ” Ferguson v. Sch w ei ker, 7 6 5 F . 2 d 3 1 , 3 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). A l though D ougherty ’ s ci t at i on t o Fer gus on is a p t, his a rg u m e n t is f law e d o n th is r ecor d beca us e D ougherty ’ s ow n t es t i m onyr egar di ng hi s pai n fel l fars hor tof es t abl i s hi ng di s abi l i ty . N ow her e i n the r ecor d does D oughertyi dent i fythe maxi m um l ength of t i m e forw hi ch he i s gener al l yabl e t o w al k ors t and. I ndeed, the A L J not ed that D o u g h e rty ’s w ritten a p p lica tio n in d ica ted th a t h is k n e e in ju ryh a s n o e f

f e c t o n h is a b ili ty t o per form m os tdai l yt as ks , s uch as hous ew ork orgr ocerys hoppi ng. A l though he 24

s om et i m es t akes A l eve w hen the pai n i s m os ts er i ous , D oughertys t at ed thathe had ne ver gone t o phy s i cal ther apyora ment al heal th pr ofes s i onal beca us e of hi s knee pa i n. A ddi t i onal l y , the A L J r ecogni zed thatthe medi cal r ecor ds do noti ndi cat e that Dou g h e r ty ’ s a b i l i tyt o wal k i s a s l i mi t e d a s h e c l a i ms . Tr e a t i n g p h y s i c i a n Dr . Nath a n E. M art i n i dent i fi ed D ougherty ’ s ai l m entas degene r at i ve j oi ntdi s eas e and di s cus s ed tr eatm entopt i ons , butD oughertydecl i ned tr eatm ent , s t at i ng that“[h] e i s notr eal l yhavi ng anys i gni fi cantdi s comfort . ” A pp. at141. D r . M art i n fai l ed t o not e anyl i m i t at i ons on D ougherty ’ s abi l i tyt o s t and orw al k. D r . Paw an G upt a, w ho exami ned D oughertyatt he behes tof the Penns y l vani a B ur eau of D i s abi l i tyD et erm i nat i on, al s o per cei ved no li m it ati o n s in D o u g h erty ’s ab il ityto w alk. F inally , S teph en S o rbe ra, a ch ir o p rac tor, r eport ed thatD oughertycoul d s t and forei ghthour s , butw oul d be l i m i t ed t o w al ki ng for fou r t o si x h ou rs . I n an ef for tt o over come t hi s m edi cal evi dence , D oughertynot es thaton one o c c a sio n w h e n h e w e n t to a sh o p p in g m a ll an d w a lk e d a ro u n d f o r a n h o u r, h is k n e e f

e lt “s t i ff. ” I d. a t 2 3 1 . D o u g h e rtytes tifie d th a t h e d id n o t b e liev e h e w o u ld h a v e b e e n a b le to w a lk a ro u n d th e m a ll all d a y , b e c a u se h e “ re a llyd id n ’t f e e l g o o d a n d . . . jus t w a n ted to go back. ” Id . A tm os t , thi s t es t i m onyi ndi cat ed thaton a s i ngl e occ as i on D oughertyw as l i m i t ed bypai n i n hi s knee t o s om ethi ng l es s than a f ul l day ’ s w or th of w al ki ng. I n l i ght of the contr arym edi cal r ecor d and D ougherty ’ s cl ai m s abouthi s over al l funct i onal i ty , t he A L J w as notr equi r ed t o i nferfr om thi s s i ngl e ane cdot e thatD oughertycannots pend5

m uch t i m e on hi s fee t . T her efor e, the A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatD oughertycoul d w al k for up t o s i x hour s perdayw as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . III . D oughertyal s o ar gues thatthe A L J i m pr oper l yfai l ed t o cons i derthe opi ni on of the c h ir o p rac tor, D r. S o rbe ra. T h is m isch ara cterizes the A L J’s o p inion . M ed ium w o rk i nvol ves the fr equentl i ft i ng and ca rry i ng of up t o 25 pounds , and l es s fr equentl i ft i ng of up t o 5 0 p ou nd s. D r. S orbera opined t hat D ou gh ertycou l d li ftno m ore than 25 po un ds, w h ich m igh t be in co n sist en t w ith an ab il ityto d o m ed ium w o rk. B u t as th e D istri ct C o u rt n o t e d , th e ALJ d i d n o tr e f u s e t o c o n s i d e rDr . So rb e r a ’ s o p i n i o n . I n s t e a d , th e ALJ “cons i der ed” D r . Sorber a’ s opi ni ons , A pp. at18, and corr ect l ynot ed thattheys houl d not be gi ven “c ontr ol l i ng w ei ght ” bec aus e, under20 C . F. R . § 404. 1513( a) , the opi ni on of a chi r opr act ori s notan “a cce pt abl e medi cal s our ce[ ] ” capabl e of e s t abl i s hi ng a det erm i nabl e i m pai r m ent . T hus , the A L J pr oper l ytr eat ed D r . Sorber a’ s opi ni on on Do u g h e r ty ’ s e x e r t i o n a l l i mi t a t i o n a s a d mi s s i b l e a n d r e l e v a n tp u r s u a n tt o 2 0 C. F . R. § 4 0 4 . 1 5 1 3 (d)(1 ), b u t fo u n d itu n p ersu asiv e in ligh t of D r. M arti n ’s an d D r. P aw an ’s f a ilu re to id e n tifysim ilar lim itatio n s, a s w e ll as D o u g h e rty ’s s e lf -d e sc rib e d d a ily a c tiv iti e s. A c c o rd in g ly , w e f in d n o e rro r in th e A L J’s tre a tm e n t o f D r. S o rb e ra ’s r e p o rt.6 I V. I n s um , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterrw hen i tconcl uded thatthe A L J ’ s fi ndi ng t hat D o u g h e rt yc o u ld p e rf

o rm h is p a s t r e le v a n t w o rk w a s s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . T h e re f o re , w e w ill a f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t.