J udge G r egoryW
. C arm an of the U ni t ed S t at es C our t of Int ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng * bydes i gnat i on. 09-4088 -cv S tanton v . A s tr

ue UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P RE CE DE NT I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R FI L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PE RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D E R IN A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S E RVE A COPY OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on t he 24 dayof M ar ch, tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

PETE R W
. HA LL,

C i r cui tJudges , GR E GOR Y W. CA RMAN,

Judge
. *

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - HOL L Y S T ANT ON, P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 09- 4088- cv M IC H A E L J. A S T R U E , C o m m iss io n e r o f S o c ial S e c u r i ty, D ef endant

-Appel l ee .

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L A N T : H O W A R D D
. O L IN S K Y , O li n sk y& S h u r t l i ff, Syr acus e, N ew Y or k. A P P E A R I N G F O R A P P E L L E E : M I C H E L L E L
. C H R I ST , Speci al A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A t t orney ( St ephen P. C ont e, A ct i ng2 R egi onal C hi ef C ouns el , R egi on I I , O ffi ce of the G ener al C ouns el , Soci al Secur i tyA dm i ni s tr at i on, of couns el), f

orR i char d S. H artu ni an, U ni t ed St at es A t t orneyfor the N or thern D i s tr i ct of N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k. A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r the N o rth ern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (L a w re n c e E . K a h n , Judge ; V ic to r E . B ia n c h in i, M agis tr at e Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm entent er ed on J ul y7, 2009, i s AF F I RMED
. H o llyS tan to n a p p e a ls f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s a f f irm a n c e o f th e S o c ial S e c u rity C om m i s s i oner ’ s deni al of di s abi l i tyi ns uran ce benef i t s . “W e r evi ew the admi ni s tr at i ve
r ecor d de novo t o det erm i ne w hetherther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t i ng t he C o m m is s io n e r’ s d e c is io n a n d w h e th e r t h e C o m m is s io n e r a p p lie d th e c o rr e c t le g a l s ta n d a rd .” Poupor e v. A s true, 566 F. 3d 303, 305 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and al t er at i on
om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o 42 U
. S. C
. § 405( g) ( m aki ng C om m i s s i oner ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs concl us i ve i f s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence )
. “Subs t ant i al evi dence
. . . m 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 su p p o rt a conc l us i on. ” Lam ay
v . C o m m ’r of

S o c. S ec . , 5 6 2 F
. 3 d 5 0 3 , 5 0 7 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ) (i n terna l q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). I n undert aki ng thi s r evi ew , w e ass um e t he par t i es ’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the fa ct s and pr ocedur al hi s t ory , w hi ch w e r efe r ence onl yas nece s s aryt o expl ai n ourdeci s i on.E ven i f w e w ere t o r eac h the mer i t s of St ant on’ s ar gum ent , w e w oul d noti dent i fy 1 err orw arr ant i ng r emand beca us e t he A L J di d i dent i fys ever e i m pai r m ent s ats t ep tw o, s o t hat S tan t on ’s cl ai m proceed ed throug h the sequen t i al evaluat i on process. F urther, con trary to St ant on’ s ar gum ent , the A L J ’ s deci s i on m akes cl earthathe cons i der ed the “c om bi nat i on of i mpa i rme n t s ” a n d th e c o mbi n e d e f f e c to f “ a l l s ympt o ms ” i n ma k i n g h i s d e t e r mi n a t i o n . ALJ O p. at5; s ee a l s o 42 U
. S. C
. § 423( d) ( 2) ( B ) ( r equi r i ng cons i der at i on of “com bi ned ef fec tof al l of the i ndi vi dual ’ s i m pai r m ent s ”) ; acc or d 20 C
. F. R
. § 404. 1523. 3 1. T he St ep Tw o A s s es s m ent St ant on s ubm i t s thatthe admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge (“ A L J ”) err ed at the sec ond of the fi ve s t eps of anal y s i s us ed t o det erm i ne di s abi l i ty , s ee 20 C. F. R
. § 404. 1520( a) ( 4) , byfai l i ng t o r ecogni ze t hat s he suff er ed fr om di s c herni at i on cons t i tut i ng a s ever e i m pai r m ent . St ant on
w ai ved thi s ar gum entbynotr ai s i ng i ti n the di s tr i ctcourt . See P oupor e v. A s true, 566 F. 3d
a t 3 0 6 . A lth o u g h S tan to n c o n ten d s th a t sh e p re se rv e d th e a rg u m e n t b y“ a lleg [ in g ] d isa b ili ty b a s e d u p o n h e r n i a t e d c e r v i c a l d i s c s , ” A p p e l l a n t ’ s R e p l y B r . a t2 , th e r e c o r d i s t o th e c o n tr a r y. T he r efe r ence s t o di s c herni at i on i n St ant on’ s openi ng br i ef t o the di s tr i ctcourtar e embedded i n hi ghl ytech n i cal , fac tual di s cus s i on. N o s uch r efe r ence appea r s as partof herar gum ent to th e c o u rt. T h u s, a lth o u g h M a g istra te Ju d g e B ian c h in i tw ice re f e re n c e d d isc h e rn iatio n in hi s r eportt o the di s tr i ct court , he di d not i dent i fyA L J err orats t ep tw o beca us e St ant on had notr ai s ed s uch a c l ai m . M or eover , St ant on di d not compl ai n of anyom i s s i on i n hervar i ous obj ect i ons t o t he di s tr i ctcourt . A ccor di ngl y , w e dee m the ar gum entw ai ved. 1 2
. S tan to n ’s R e sid u a l F u n c tio n a l C a p a c ity St ant on cont ends thatthe A L J err ed i n det erm i n i n g thats he had the r es i dual funct i onal
c a p a c ity (“ R F C ” ) t o w o rk a s a c ir c u it b o a rd a s s e m b le r. B ec au se the o n set d ate o f S tanto n ’s4

cl ai m ed i m pai r m enti s O ct ober5, 2004, s he bor e the bur den of pro vi ng otherw i s e. See C l ar i fi cat i on of R ul es I nvolving R esi dual Funct i onal C apac i tyA s s es s m ent s , 68 Fed. R eg. 51, 153, 51, 154- 55 ( A ug. 26, 2003) ; s ee al s o Poupor e v. A s true, 566 F. 3d at306 ( obs ervi ng that even at s t ep fi ve, “the C om m i s s i oner need onl y s how that ther e i s w or k i n the nat i onal
ec o n o m ythat the c lai m an t can d o ; he n ee d n o t pro v ide a d d it ion al ev iden ce o f th e c lai m an t’ s
re s id u a l f

u n c tio n a l c a p a c ity” ). S tan to n n e v e rth e les s f

a u lts th e A L J f

o r f a ili n g to c ite m e d ica l ev id e n c e to su p p o rt h is R FC det erm i nat i on and t o pr ovi de the r equi s i t e narr at i ve di s cus s i on of R FC
. See A s s es s i ng R es i dual Funct i onal C apac i tyi n I ni t i al C l ai m s , SSR 96- 8p, 1996 W L 374184, at*7 ( J ul y2, 1996)
. She fur ther compl ai ns that the A L J fai l ed t o fol l ow the tr eat i ng phy s i ci an rul e. See 20 C
. F. R
. § 404. 1527( d) ( 2)
. W e ar e notper s uaded. T he r ecor d s how s thatthe A L J cons i der ed the medi cal opi ni ons of tr eat i ng phy s i ci an D r. N o rm an L asd a an d co n su lt ing p h y sici an D r. K aly an i G an esh
. B ec au s e D r. L asd a’s op i nion w as un supp ort ed byobj ect i ve cli nical evidence an d co ntr adict ed b yhis ow n records, the exa m i nat i on r eportof D r . G anes h, the r eportof a s t at e agencydi s abi l i tyanal y s t , and S tanto n ’s o w n ac co u n t o f he r ran g e of ac ti v it ies, the A L J d id no t err i n d ec li n ing to ac co rd i t contr ol l i ng w ei ght
. See H al l or an v. B arnhart , 362 F. 3d 28, 32 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( obs ervi ng thattr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on “i s notaff or ded contr ol l i ng w ei ght ” w her e i ti s “not
cons i s t entw i th ot hers ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d, s uch as t he opi ni ons of otherm edi cal expert s ”) ; cf. 20 C
. F. R
. § 404. 1527( d) ( 2) ( acc or di ng contr ol l i ng w ei ghtt o tr eat i ng5

p h y sici an ’s op inion if “w ell -sup p o rt ed b ym ed ic a llyac ce p table c li n ical an d labo ratory diagnost i c t echn i qu es and
. . . no t i nco nsi st ent w i th other subst anti al evidenc e in
. . . case
rec o rd” ). Ind ee d , the n o ted c o n tr ad ict o ryev iden ce p rov ides the re q u isi te su b stan ti al su p p o rt forthe C om m i s s i oner ’ s R FC det erm i nat i on. 3
. T h e A d v e rse C re d ib ili tyA ss e ss m e n t St ant on faul t s the A L J ’ s adver s e cr edi bi l i tyfi ndi ng as t o hercl ai m of di s abl i ng pai n. “It i s the fu n cti o n o f th e [ C o m m issi o n er], n o t th e [ rev iew ing co u rt s], to reso lve e v iden ti ary confl i ct s and t o appr ai s e the cr ed ibil ityof w i tnes s es , i ncl udi ng the cl ai m ant . ” A pont e v. Sec’ y , D ep’ tof H eal th & H um an Servs . , 728 F. 2d 588, 591 ( 2d C i r . 1984) ( s econd a l t er at i on i n o r i g i n a l ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d )
. W e h a v e n o r e a s o n t o s e c ond- gues s t he
c re d ib ili tyf

in d in g in th is c a se w h e re th e A L J id e n tifie d sp e c if ic r e c o rd -b a se d re a so n s f o r h is
rul i ng. See A s s es s i ng t he C r edi bi l i ty of an I ndi vi dual ’ s St at ement s , SSR 96- 7p, 61 Fed. R eg. 34, 483, 34, 486 ( J ul y2, 1996)
. Forexampl e, the A L J not ed the di s cr ep ancybetw een St ant on’ s as s ert ed i nabi l i ty t o m ove her neck and her t es t i m ony that s he w as abl e t o dr i ve and p e rf o rm h o u s e h o ld c h o re s . N o d if f e re n t co n c lu sio n is w a r r a n te d b yth e A L J’s f a ilu re to
r e f e r e n c e s p e c i f

i c a l l y S t a n t o n ’ s g o o d w o r k h i s t o ry, beca us e s ubs t ant i al evi dence as i de fr om
w or k hi s t orys uppor t s the adver s e cr edi bi l i ty rul i ng. See Schaa l v. A pfel , 134 F. 3d 496, 502 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ).6

4
. S tan to n ’s 2 0 0 6 W o rk A c tiv ity St ant on as s ert s , w i thoutci t at i on t o anypr ece dent , that h er 2 0 0 6 w or k as s embl i ng ci r cui tboar ds fr om hom e s houl d have be en vi ew ed as a “tr i al w or k per i od” not bear i ng on h e r d is a b ility c la im
. In f a c t, th e re lev a n t sta tu tes a n d r e g u latio n s d o n o t su p p o rt th is
ar gum ent . T h ey p rov ide t hatw hen a pe r s on “bec om es ent i t l ed t o di s abi l i tyi ns ur ance benefi t s , ” 42 U
. S. C
. § 422( c) ( 3) ( emphasi s added) , s he may“t es t[her ] abi l i tyt o w or k and
s t i l l be cons i der ed di s abl ed, ” 20 C
. F. R
. § 404. 1592( a)
. D ur i ng the tr i al per i od, “anys ervi ces
r ender ed byan i ndi vi dual
. . . s hal l be dee m ed nott o have be en r ender ed bys uch i ndi vi dual i n d e t e r mi n i n g wh e th e r[ h e r ] d i s a b i l i tyh a s c e a s e d i n a mo n th d u r i n g s u c h p e r i o d
. ” 4 2 U. S
. C. § 422 (c) (2) (em ph asi s add ed); see al so 20 C
. F
. R
. § 404
. 15 92 (a)
. H ere, the A L J di d n ot use evi dence of St ant on’ s 2006 w or k act i vi tyforthe pr ohi bi t ed purpos e of d eterm i ni ng i f a di s abi l i tyhad ce as ed. R ather , the A L J us ed the evi dence to e val uat e the cons i s t encyand
c re d ib ili tyo f

S tan to n ’s c laim o f

th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f a d isa b ili ty . W h a tev e r a rg u m e n ts
m ight be advan ced for enco uragi ng tri al w ork per i od s by persons un cert ai n as to th e ir d i s a b i l i tys t a tu s , u n t i l Con g r e s s p r o v i d e s o th e rwi s e , w e i dent i f yn o e rr o ri n a n ALJ
cons i der i ng evi dence of w or k act i vi ty i n deci di ng an i ni t i al di s abi l i ty cl ai m . A s w e obs erved in G o ld v . S e c re tar yo f H e a lth , E d u c a tio n & W e lf a re , an A L J c o n sid e rin g a d isa b ili tyc laim has a duty“t o s crupul ous l yand cons ci ent i ous l ypr obe i nt o, i nqui r e of, and expl or e foral l t he
r el evantfac t s . ” 463 F. 2d 38, 43 ( 2d C i r . 1972) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)7

5
. P ast R elev an t W o rk S tanto n su b m it s tha t th e A L J erred in d eterm ining that sh e h a d the R F C to p erf o rm h e r p a st re lev a n t w o rk a s a c irc u it b o a rd a ss e m b ler w ith o u t co n su lti n g a v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt. B ec au se su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the A L J’s R F C d eterm ination – n o tably , S tanto n ’s
a c tu a l p e r f

o r m a n c e o f

c i r c u i tb o a r d a s s e m b l y w o r k d u r i n g th e p e r i o d o f a l l e g e d d i s a b i l i ty –
we c o n c l u d e th a t t he o p i n i o n o f a v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r twa s n o tr e q u i r e d
. Cf
. 2 0 C. F
. R. § 4 0 4 .1 5 6 0 (b )(2 ) (o b se rv in g th a t A L Js “ m a y u se th e se rv ice s o f v o c a tio n a l ex p e rts” to o b tain
e v id e n c e n e c e ss a ryto h e lp d e ter m in e w h e th e r c laim a n t ca n d o p a st re lev a n t w o rk (e m p h a sis added) )
. A ccor di ngl y , w e i dent i fyno m eri t in thi s chal l enge. See i d. § 404. 1560( b) ( 3) ( s t at i ng thatper s on found t o “have the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci ty t o do [her ] pas tr el evant
w o rk” w il l be f

o u n d “n o t disab led” ). W e have cons i der ed St ant on’ s r emai ni ng ar gum ent s on appea l and concl ude thatt hey lac k m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt