NO T PRECEDEN TI AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o . 09-1546

R A F A E L A A . C E R R A T O , 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 rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . N o. 2- 08- cv- 00277 ) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le S tanleyR . C h esler

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

J une 29, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y2, 2010)

_____ OP I NI ONT he A L J m or eoverfound t hatC er r at o “t ook an addi t i onal 1 trip ” to th e D o m in ica n R e p u b lic a f ter sh e f

iled f o r d isa b ili ty in s u ra n c e b e n e f

its a n d s u p p le m e n ta l s e c u ri ty in c o m e . R . a t 2 8 .

2 S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . A p p ell an t R af

ae la C errato (“ C errato” ) ap p ea ls th e f inal o rde r of

the D istri ct C o u rt af firm ing the d ec isi o n o f th e C o m m issi o n er o f S o cial S ec u ri tyd en y ing C errato’s a p p l i c a t i o n f

o rS o c i a l S e c u r i t yDi s a b i l i t yb e 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 t yI n c o me benef i t s . C er r at o ar gues t hats he i s di s abl ed undert he Soci al Secur i t yA ctand t hatt he d e c i s i o n o f

t h e Co mmi s s i o n e rwa s n o ts u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I . C er r at o came t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n 1989 aft ergr aduat i ng fr om col l ege i n t he D o m in ica n R e p u b lic w ith a d e g re e in B u sin e ss A d m in istra tio n . S h e is f if ty -f o u r y e a rs o ld and has w or ked as a pac kager , hous ekee per , and fl ow erar r anger . C er r at o s t at es t hats he beca m e di s abl ed i n 2001 due t o t he ef fec t s of a f

r actur e t o herr i ghtfoots us t ai ned t hat y ear , as w el l as degene r at i ve di s c di s eas e of the s pi ne, hyper t ens i on, di abet es , and d e p re s s io n . I n t he hea r i ng befor e an A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) , C er r at o t es t i fi ed t hat s he i s abl e t o per for m m i norhous ehol d chor es butt hathers i s t erand daught erhel p her w ith c o o k in g a n d sh o p p in g . A lth o u g h C e rra to a c k n o w led g e d tak in g th re e h o u r f lig h ts to and fr om t he D om i ni can Republ i c w hi l e s uffe r i ng fr om t he s ame ai l m ent s , s he cl ai m ed th a t sh e is u n a b le to sit f o r p ro lo n g e d p e rio d s, a n d a ss e rte d th a t sh e c a n o n lyw a lk “ [ h ]a lf 13

a [ c ity] b lo c k .” R . a t 5 0 7 . C er r at o s ubm i t t ed a Phy s i cal R es i dual Funct i onal C apac i t yQ ues t i onnai r e i n w hi ch one of he rdoct or s r epor t ed t hatheri m pai r m ent s l as t ed orw er e expe ct ed t o l as tt w el ve m ont hs , t hats he expe r i ence d pai n “cons t ant l y , ” and thats he w as “[i ] ncapa bl e of e ven

‘ l ow s t r es s ’ j obs [. ] ” R . at375. T he A L J al s o not ed t he opi ni ons of ot herphy s i ci ans , one of w hom s t at ed t hatC er r at o had “no l i m i t at i ons of w al ki ng, gai t , hous ehol d m ai nt enanc e, tra v e l o n p u b lic tra n sp o rta tio n ” a n d “ [ s]h e is a b le is a b le to sh o p , an d o n lyn e e d s h e lp beca us e of poorm emory . ” R . at355. M or eover , a s t at e appoi nt ed ps y chol ogi s tpr ovi ded a M e n tal R e sid u a l F u n c tio n a l C a p a c ityA ss e ss m e n t, co n c lu d in g th a t C e rra to w a s a b le to p e rf o rm “ s im p le ro u tin e w o rk -r e la te d a c tiv itie s .” R . a t 2 0 5 . A ft ert he hea r i ng, t he A L J obt ai ned ans w er s t o i nt er r ogat or i es fr om a voca t i onal e x p e rt, statin g th a t C e rra to ’s a g e , ed u c a tio n , w o rk e x p e rie n c e , an d c a p a c itye n a b led h e r to p e rf o rm jo b s th a t ar e “ u n sk ill e d a n d lig h t.” R . at 4 5 4 . S p e c if ica lly , the e x p e rt listed g a te g u a rd , sc h o o l b u s m o n ito r, f lag g e r, o r c a f

e ter ia a tten d a n t. A c c o rd in g to th e e x p e rt, appr oxi m at el y1, 200 s uch j obs exi s t ed i n t he r egi onal m ar ket , w i t h appr oxi m at el y25, 000 in th e n a tio n a l m a rk e t. T he A L J hel d t hatC er r at o’ s i m pai r m ent s di d not“pr ecl ude a ll w or k act i vi t y , ” R . at 20 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) , and found thatheral l egat i ons of t ot al di s abi l i t yl acke d cr edi bi l i t ybeca us e t heyw er e uns ubs t ant i at ed byobj ect i ve medi cal evi dence and i ncons i s t entw i t h “herr epor t s of herdai l yact i vi t i es . ” R . at28. I n l i ghtof t he voca t i onalTh e Di s t r i c tCo u r te x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i on u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. 2 § 405( g) . W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 4 exper t ’ s t es t i m onyt hatC er r at o w as capa bl e of pe r for m i ng j obs t hatexi s ti n s i gni fi cant n u m b e rs, th e A L J ru led th a t C e rra to w a s n o t d isa b led f o r p u rp o se s o f

th e S o c ial S e c u rity A ct . T he D i s t r i ctC our taff i r m ed, and C er r at o appea l ed. 2

II. W e re v iew th e A L J’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e d e c isio n is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . 

### 42 U.S.C. § 4 05 (g). Substantia l e vidence const it utes “s uch rel evant e vidence as a r ea sonable mind m ight ac cept as adequate, ” andis “m ore than a m er e s ci ntil la .” Bu rnett v . Com m’r of Soc. Sec . , 220 F. 3d 112, 118 ( 3d Ci r . 2000) ( quot i ng Plum mer v . Apfel , 186 F. 3d 422, 427 ( 3d Ci r . 1999) ) ( i nt e rna lquot at i ons o m itted ). To be el igible fo r dis abil it y benefits , Cer

rato m ust dem on strate that

her im pair m ents ar e “ of

such se veri ty

that [s]h e i s not on ly

un able to do h[ er ] p re viou s work bu t c anno t, considering h [er] age, e du cati on , andwo rk experi ence , e ng age i n any other k in do f sub stan tial g ain f

u l w o rkw h ichex ists inth e n atio n al eco n o my ,” 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 2 3 (d )(2 )(A ), du e to “any m ed ically

d eterm in ab le p hy sical o r m ental im p airm en t . . . whi c h ha s l a s t e d or

c an be e xpe c t e d t o l a s t

for ac ont i nuous pe r i od of not l e s s than 12 m on ths, ” id. at § 4 2 3 (d )(1 )(A ). To veri fy a c la im ant’ s e li gibili ty , the AL J m ust per fo rm

a five- st ep se qu enti al5



### ana l y s i s ; i f any

s t e p i n the ana l y s i s de t e rm i ne s ac l a i m ant t o be e i the r

di s abl e d or

not di s abl e d, ade c i s i on i s m a de at that s t e p and the s e que nc e c onc l ude s . 20 C. F. R. §§ 40 4.15 20 & 416 .920 . The AL J foundthat al thou ghCerr at o ass erte d a spinal im p airm en t, an danM R I in d icatedm ildd eg en erativ e ch an g es, C errato ’s co n d itio n s d id no t m ee t t

he List ing o f Im

pair m ents re qu ir em ents (s tep 3 ), beca use there was nei ther “sig n if ican t n arro w in g o f

th e cen tral sp in e can al [ n ] o r n eural f o ram in a.” R . at 3 3 1 . The ALJnot e d that

a ft e r Ce rr at o unde rwe nt

am i ni m a l l y

i nva s i ve ba c k s ur ge ry , s he did n ot take any

pain m edic at ion andher doctor re corded that the proce dure re solved Ce rr at o’ s pa i n and that

s he wa s “ doi ng ve ry

we l l . ” R. at

472. I nde e d, jus t

afe w m onths af ter th at surg ery , C errato statedto a so cial w o rk er th at h er surg ery h adb een“su ccessf

u l,” that her pai n h ad decre as ed, andthat she c ou ld “am

bu late independ entl y

agai n.” R. at 461. Cons e que nt l y , e ve n i f Ce rr at o’ s i m pa i rm e nt ha d be e n s e ve r e e nough t o s at i s fy the Li s t i ng r e qui r e m e nt s pr i or t o the s ur ge ry , the c ondi t i on di d not l a s t the r e qui s i t e twe l ve m o n th s to qu alif

y h er f o r d isab ility

b en ef its . Se ege ne rall

yBarnhar t

v . W al ton , 5 3 5 U .S . 2 1 2 , 2 1 7 , 2 2 2 (2 0 0 2 ) (up h o ld in g S o cial S ecurity A dm in istratio n ’s ru le th at a claim an t is not di s abl e d i f “ wi thi n 12 m onths a ft e r the ons e t of an i m pa i rm e nt . . . the i m

pa i rm e nt no long er prevents substantia l gai nf ul ac ti vity”) (quo ti ng 65 Fed. Reg. 42 77 4 (20 00 )) . We ag ree w ithth e g o v ern m en t th at th ere w as sub stan tial ev id en ce to sup p o rt the ALJ ’ s c onc lus i on that Ce rr at o’ s phy s i c a ls y

m pt om s we r e not

a s di s abl i ng a s s he c l a i m e d, gi ve n Ce rr at o’ s r e port s of he r a c t i vi t i e s thr oughout

the r e c or d ( i nc l udi ng6



### ho usehold cho re s, use of p ub li c transpo rt at ion, and o cc as ional a ss is tance at her si st er ’s co n v en ien ce sto re). C er r at o’ s cont i nuous per for m ance of t hos e ac t i vi t i es w as m or e t han “s por adi c and tr ans i t or y . ” Sm i t h v. C al i f ano , 637 F. 2d 968, 972 ( 3d C i r . 1981) 

### ( quot i ng W i lle m v . Ri c hards on , 490 F.2d12 47 , 124 9 n .4 (8th Cir. 19 74 )) . T he A L J has di s cr et i on to “ e v a lu a te th e c re d ib ili tyo f a c laim a n t an d . . . arr iv e a t an in d e p e n d e n t ju d g m e n t, i n l i ghtof m edi cal fi ndi ngs and ot herevi dence , r egar di ng t he t r ue ext entof t he pai n al l eged .

. . . ” B r ow n v. Schw ei ker , 562 F. Supp. 284, 287 ( E . D . Pa. 1983) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons o m itte d ). 

### Mor e ove r , s ubje c t i ve s t at e m e nt s of s y m pt om s a l one ar e not

s uffi c i e nt

t o fi nd d isab ility . 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 9 (a). Mor e ove r , the ALJc onc l ude d that Ce rr at o’ s de pr e s s i on c oul d not be a s de bi l i t at i ng a s s he a s s e rt e d. The r e c or d s howe d that Ce rr at o c oul d “ unde r s t and, c arry out , and rem em b er in stru ctio n s, as w ell as . . . resp o n dap p ro p riately to sup erv iso rs, co -w o rk ers, an dw o rkstresses ina lo wstress, n o np ro du ctio nqu o ta w o rksettin g .” R . at 2 9 ; see a lso La Co rte v . Bow en , 678 F. Supp. 80, 83 ( D. N. J . 1988) ( hol di ng that an ALJm ay

gi ve little w eig h t to a claim an t’s co m p lain ts an din steadrely

o nm ed ical ev id en ce o r activ ity rep o rts s/h e d eem s m o re cred ib le). At the fifth st ep, the Co mm is si on er bear s the bu rden of

dem on strati ng that sub stan tial num

b ers o f j o b s th at th e claim an t canp erf o rm ex ist inth e n atio n al eco n o my . Plum mer , 1 8 6 F .3 dat 4 2 8 . C e rra to a rg u e d th a t “o b jec tiv e m e d ica l f

in d in g s [ d id n o t] s uppor tt he [A L J ’ s ] ” conc l us i on t hats he coul d compl et e l i ghtw or k, A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at30,buts ever al r epor t s fr om C er r at o’ s doct or s s ugges tt hatdes pi t e phy s i cal and ment al

lim ita tio n s , s h e m a in ta in s s u f f ic ie n t c a p a c ity to p e rf

o rm s o m e w o rk . 

### Cerr at o als o argues that the AL J e rr ed in find ing that s he could p er fo rm li gh t work and incorrec tl y

re li ed ona vocat ional e xp ert’ s t es ti m on y , which was bas ed ona “ flawed hy pothe t i c a l ” that

di d not i nc l ude a l lof he r

a l l e ge d s y

m pt om s . Appe l l ant ’ s Br . at 38. Althou ghthe hy

po thet ic alpo se d to the vo cati on alexpert did n ot includ e a llof

Cerr at o’s alleg edsy m p to m s, w e h av e h eldth at a v o catio n al h y p o th etical m

u st sp ecif y o n ly th o se im p airm en ts th at are sup p o rtedb y th e reco rd . Ch rupcala v. Heck le r , 829 F. 2d 1269, 1276 (3 dC ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (citin g , in ter alia, P o d ed w o rn y v. H a rris , 745 F.2d21 0, 21 8 (3dCir. 1 9 8 4 )). T h e A L J d idn o t in co rp o rate in to th e h y p o th etical C errato ’s sub

j ectiv e co m

p lain ts of pa i n and de pr e s s i on be c aus e , a s the ALJe xpl a i ne d, s he gave l i tt l e c r e de nc e t o the repo rt s that c orrobo rate d tho se sy m ptom s. Accordingly , the vo cati on alhy po thet ic alwas not “ de fe c t i ve , ” a s Ce rr at o ave r s . Appe l l ant ’ s Br . at 42. In short, the ALJ dem on strate d th at th e ratio n ale un d erlyin g h er d ecisio nw as “clearly d isclo sedan dad equ ately sust ai ned.” Se eHar

ge nrade r v . Cal i f ano , 575 F. 2d 434, 436 ( 3d Ci r . 1978) ( quot i ng S. E. C. v . Che ne r

yCor p. , 3 1 8 U .S . 8 0 , 9 4 (1 9 4 3 )).

III. F o r th e ab o v e-statedreaso n s, w e w ill af f irm th e j u d g m en t o f

th e D istrict C o urt.

7