Pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 43( c) ( 2) , M i chae l J . A s true i s s ubs t i tut ed for * J oA nn B . B arnhartas appel l ee i n thi s act i on.

UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

J ERRY L. PRI TCH ETT,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. M I CH AEL J . ASTRU E, * C o m m iss io n e r o f

th e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s tr at i on,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 5130 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - C V - 8 1 - F H M) (N .D . O k la .)

OR DER Fi l ed M ar ch 23, 2007 B efor e P O R F IL IO , BA LD OCK , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es.

T hi s m att ercomes be for e the courton appel l ant ’ s pet i t i on forpanel r ehea r i ng. I n t he pet i t i on, appel l antcont ends t he pane l over l ooked hi s ar gum ent thatthe A L J ’ s deci s i on vi ol at ed thi s court ’ s pr ece pt s i n Hackettv. B arnh art , 3 9 5 F . 3 d 1 1 6 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). U p o n c o n sid e ra tio n th e re o f, w e G R A N T th e p e tit io n fo r re h e a rin g in p a rt, W I T H D R A W ouror derand j udgm entof J anuary17, 2007, and s ubs t i tut e a- 2-

m o d ified o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t filed th is d a te. A p p e llan t’s m o tio n to file re p lyto a p p e l l e e ’ s r e s p o n s e i s DE NI E D.

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt E L IS A B E T H A . S H U M A K E R , C lerk

B y: D ep u tyC lerkPur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 43( c) ( 2) , M i chae l J . A s true i s s ubs t i tut ed for * J oA nn B . B arnhartas appel l ee i n thi s act i on. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 23,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

J ERRY L. PRI TCH ETT,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. M I CH AEL J . ASTRU E, * C o m m iss io n e r o f

th e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s tr at i on,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 5130 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - C V - 8 1 - F H M) (N .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e P O R F IL IO , BA LD OCK , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es.

I n J une 2003, pl ai nt i ff a ppl i ed fordi s abi l i tyi ns ur ance benef i t s and s u p p le m e n ta l s e c u ri ty in c o m e a lle g in g d is a b ility d u e to c h ro n ic b a c k p a in . A ft eri ni t i al deni al s , pl ai nt i ff a nd hi s couns el appea r ed ata hea r i ng befor e anC o n tra ryto th e C o m m iss io n e r’s p o sitio n , the c o n su lti n g p sy c h o lo g ist, 1 D r. V a u g h t, m a d e th is d ia g n o s is ; it w a s n o t c o n c o c te d b yp la in tiff ’s a tto rn e y . See A p lt. A p p ., V o l. II at 1 2 8 . D r. V a u g h t p ro v isio n a llyd iag n o se d “ P a in (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 2- admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge ( A L J ) w ho eventual l yrul ed thatpl ai nt i ff w as not 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 rityA c t. T h e A p p e a ls C o u n c il deni ed r evi ew , and pl ai nt i ff a ppeal ed t o the di s tr i ctcourtw hi ch affi r m ed the d e c is io n o f

th e C o m m is s io n e r. Pl ai nt i ff now appea l s t o thi s court , ar gui ng thatthe A L J ( 1) err ed ats t eps tw o an d three o f th e five-step seq u en ti al ev alua ti o n p roc ess; (2) fail ed to p erfo rm a pr opercr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on; and ( 3) err ed ats t ep fi ve w hen he found that pl ai nt i ff c oul d per form the j ob of s el f- s ervi ce s t or e att endant . E xer ci s i ng juri sd ict ion u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 4 0 5 (g) a n d 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 , w e re v erse in p art a n d re m a n d . I n r evi ew i ng t he A L J ’ s deci s i on, “w e nei therr ew ei gh the evi dence nor s ubs t i tut e ourj udgm entforthatof the age ncy . ” C as i as v. Sec’ y of Heal th & Hum an Servs. , 9 3 3 F . 2 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). Instea d , w e re v iew the A L J’s deci s i on onl y“t o det erm i ne w hetherthe fa ctual fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed by su b stan ti al ev iden ce in the rec o rd a n d w h ethe r th e c o rrect l eg al st an d ard s w ere appl i ed. ” D oya lv. B arnh art , 3 3 1 F . 3 d 7 5 8 , 7 6 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). Pl ai nt i ff a r gues thatthe A L J err ed byfai l i ng t o cons i derthathi s di agnos ed pai n di s or der , a type of s om at oform di s or der , w as s ever e at s t ep tw o. Pl ai nt i ff, 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 D i s or derA s s oci at ed w i th B oth Psy chol ogi cal Fact or s and a G ener al M edi cal C o n d it ion . ” T h is disord er is a typ e o f p ain d isord er w h ich itsel f is a su b ca tego ry o f s o m a to fo rm d is o rd e rs . See A m e r. P s y c h ia tr ic A s s n ., D i agnos t i c & Stat is t i cal Man ua lof MentalD isorders 4 4 5 , 4 6 2 (4 th e d . 1 9 9 4 ).

- 3- h o w e v e r, fa iled to d e m o n stra te th a t h is p a in d iso rd e r “ sig n ifica n tlylim its [hi s ] . . . abi l i tyt o do bas i c w or k act i vi t i es . ” See 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (c ). A cl ai m antats t ep tw o “musts how m or e than the mer e pr es ence of a c ondi t i on or ai l m ent . ” Hi nkl e v. Apf el , 1 3 2 F .3 d 1 3 4 9 , 1 3 5 2 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). Be c a u s e p l a i n t i ff ’ s p a i n d i s o r d e rwas n o ta s e v e r e i mpa i r me n t , th e ALJ w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to c o n s id e r i t a t s te p th re e w h e n h e a p p lie d th e lis tin g s . C f. 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 5 (a) (no ti n g that li sti n g s d esc ri b e o n lysev ere i m pai r m ent s ) . A s forthe otheri m pai r m ent s w hi ch the A L J di d r ecogni ze a s se v e re , w e h o ld th a t, de sp ite th e A L J’s fa ilu re to d isc u ss th e e v id e n c e o r h is rea so n s fo r de term ining that p lai n ti ff w as n o t disab led a t st ep three , “the A L J’s factuall ysubst anti at ed findings atst eps fo ur and fi ve o f t he ev al uati on process al l eviat es any conce r n that[pl ai nt i ff] m i ghthave be en adj udged di s abl ed ats t ep thr ee. ” F ischer- R oss v. B arnh art , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T ur ni ng t o the A L J ’ s cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on, w e fi nd i tadequa t el yl i nked t o and s uppor t ed bys peci fi c evi dence i n the r ecor d. Speci fi cal l y , w e not e thatt he m o s t r e m a rk a b le a s p e c t o f p la in tiff ’s m e d ic a l r e c o rd is th a t th e re is s o littl e o f it. T he medi cal evi dence i n the r ecor d comes e nt i r el yfr om cons ul t at i ve exa m i nat i onsT h e re is s o m e e v id e n c e th a t p lain tiff w o u ld o c c a sio n a llytak e p a in 2 m edi cat i ons gi ven hi m byfr i ends . A pl t . A pp. , V ol . I I at63.

- 4- or der ed bythe C om m i s s i oner . D es pi t e compl ai nt s of chr oni c and de bi l i t at i ng back pa i n thathas l as t ed fortw entyy ear s , pl ai nt i ff ne vers oughttr eatm entbyany pr i vat e phy s i ci an orus ed anypai n m edi cat i on otherthan over - the- count er rem ed ies. In re sp o n se to p lai n ti ff ’s ex p lana ti o n that h e c o u ld n o t affo rd

2 tr eatm ent , the A L J not ed thatfr ee medi cal car e w as avai l abl e, a fi ndi ng pl ai nt i ff d o e s n o t d is p u te o n a p p e a l. P lai n ti ff n ex t argu es th at, b ec au se h is R F C li m it s h im to a lo w -no ise w o rk e n v iro n m e n t, he c a n n o t d o th e jo b o f se lf-se rv ice sto re a tten d a n t. T h a t jo b is char act er i zed a s one w i th “moder at e” noi s e, a l evel des cr i bed i n Sel ect ed C har act er i s t i cs of O ccupa t i ons D efi ned i n the R evi s ed D i ct i onaryof O ccupa t i onal T i t l es ( U . S . D ep’tof L abo r, 19 93 ) ( S C O ), as that encou nter ed in a “bu si ness offi ce w her e typew r i t er s ar e us ed; depart m ents t or e; gr ocerys t or e; l i ghtt r aff i c; fas tfood r es t aur antatoff- hour s . ” Id. at365, A pp. D . atD - 2. D es pi t e hi s us e of the t erm “l ow , ” the A L J char act er i zed pl ai nt i ff’ s noi s e t ol er ance as bei ng thatof an “or di narybus i nes s comm er ci al educa t i on type noi s e envi r onm ent . ” A pl t . A pp. V ol . I I at185. T he A L J not ed onl yt hatcl ai m ant“s houl dn’ tbe on a foundr yfl oor orfl aggi ng trucks byors om ethi ng l i ke thatbeca us e of the noi s e. ” Id . B ecause the l evel of noi s e des cr i bed bythe A L J as “l ow ” more pr oper l yl i nes up w i th t he- 5-

SCO de fi ni t i on of

“ mode r a t e ” no i s e , w e fi nd no c on fl i c tbe tw e e n p l a i nt i ff’ s RFC a n d th e n o ise c h a ra c ter istics o f a jo b a s a se lf-se rv ice sto re a tten d a n t. Pl ai nt i ff’ s R FC , how ever , does notm at ch up t o the ment al demands of a s el f- s ervi ce s t or e att endantj ob. I n Hackettv. B arnh art , 395 F. 3d 1168, 1176 ( 10th C i r . 2005) , t hi s courtr ever s ed a port i on of an A L J ’ s deci s i on and r emanded underci r cumst ance s i ndi s t i ngui s habl e fr om pl ai nt i ff’ s . I n Ha c ke tt, the A L J found the pl ai nt i ff r es tr i ct ed t o “s i m pl e and r out i ne w or k t as ks . ” Id. T he j obs i dent i fi ed forthe pl ai nt i ff, how ever , r equi r ed a r eas oni ng l evel of thr ee, defi ned as the abi l i tyt o “‘ [a] ppl ycomm ons ens e under s t andi ng t o carryouti ns truct i ons f u rn i s h e d i n wr i t t e n , o r a l , o rd i a g r a mma t i c fo r m[ , a n d d ] e a l wi th p r o b l e ms i nvol vi ng s ever al concr et e var i abl es i n orfr om s t andar di zed s i tuat i ons . ’ ” Id. ( quot i ng D i ct i onar

y of O ccupat i onalTi t l es , V ol . I I at1011) . T hi s cour tnot ed thatthe l i m i t at i on t o s i m pl e orr out i ne w or k “s eems i ncons i s t entw i th the demands of l evel - thr ee r eas oni ng. ” Id. Si m i l ar l y , her e, t he A L J found pl ai nt i ff l i m i t ed t o “s i m pl e, r epet i t i ve and r out i ne w or k. ” A pl t . A pp. V ol . I I at23. T he A L J fur therfound, how ever , that pl ai nt i ff c oul d w or k as a s el f- s ervi ce s t or e att endant , a j ob r equi r i ng a r eas oni ng l evel of thr ee. A s i n Ha c ke tt , a l e v e l - th r e e r e a s o n i n g r e q u i r e me n ts e e ms i ncons i s t entw i th the A L J ’ s concl us i on thatpl ai nt i ff c an onl ydo j obs w hi ch pr es ents i m pl e, r epet i t i ve and r out i ne t as ks . T hi s cas e mustther efor e be r ever s ed i n partand r emanded t o al l ow t he A L J t o addr es s the appa r entconfl i ctbetw een- 6-

pl ai nt i ff’ s i nabi l i tyt o per form m or e than s i m pl e and r epet i t i ve t as ks and the l evel - thr ee r eas oni ng r equi r ed bythe j ob i dent i fi ed forhi m bythe voca t i onal e x p e rt . T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt is th e re fo re R E V E R S E D in p a rt, an d th is cas e i s R E M A N D E D w i th i ns truct i ons t o r emand t o the C om m i s s i onerforfur ther p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt B obbyR . B al dock C i r cui tJ udge