2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-17-2007 

# Ro dr i g ue z v

. C omm S o c i al S ec ur it y P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 06-2810

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du . R e c omme nde d C it a t ion " R odr i g uez v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1272. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1272T h e H on or abl e W i l l i am H . Yoh n , S en i or

Un i t ed S t at es Di st r i ctJu d ge f or * t he E a s t e rn D i s t r i c to f

P e nns y l vani a , s i t t i ngb y

de s i g nat i o n. 1 NOTP RE CE DENT I

AL U N ITE D S TA TE S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F OR T H E T H I

RD CI RCUIT C a s e N o : 06- 2810 RA F A E L R O D R I G

U E Z, Ap p e l l ant v. C O M M I S S I O N E R

O F S O C I

A L S E C U R ITY On Ap p e a l f

ro m th e United S tate s Dis tric t Co u rt f or th e Di st ri cto f

New Jer sey D i s t r i c tC o urtN o . 04- C V - 5550 Dis tric t Jud g e : J o se p h A. G re e n awa y , Jr . S u bm i t t ed P u rs u an tt o T h i rd Ci rcu i tL . A. R. 3 4 . 1 (a)

Ap r i l 13, 200 7 Be f o re : SMIT H

and CO WEN , Ci rcu i t

Ju d g es , and Y O H N , D is tr i c t

J udge * ( Fi l e d: Ap r i l 17, 200 7 ) OP I NIONT h e Distr ict Cou rt h adju risd icti o n u n d er 4 2 U.S . C. § 4 0 5 (g ). We ex erc ise 1 a p p e l l at e j ur i s di c t i o n p ur s ua ntt o 28 U . S. C . § 12 91.

2 SMI T H , Ci rc ui t

J udge . Raf ael R od ri gu ez ap pe al s f

rom t h e Di st ri ctCou rt j u d gmen taf f i rmi n g t h e f ina l de c is io n o f

the Co m mis s io ne r o f

So c ia l Se c urity , w hic h d e nie d h is a p p lic atio n f

o r b e ne f its un de r T itl e I

I o f the So c ia l Se c urity

A c t. O ur r e vie wis 1 l i mi t e d t o de t e rmi ni ngw he t he r the r e i s s ub s t ant i a l e vi de nc e t o s up p o rtt he Com mi ssi on er’ s d ecis i on . 4 2 U. S . C. § 4 0 5 (g). S u bstan t i al ev i d en ce is “ su ch re le vant e vide nc e a s a

r e a s o nab le mind mig ht a c c e p t a s a de qu ate to s up p o rt a co n cl u si on . ” R i ch a rd

so n v. Pera l es , 4 0 2 U. S . 3 8 9 , 4 0 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ( i n t ern al q u ot at i on marks an d cit at i on o mi t t ed ). F or th e reason s setf ort h b el ow, we co n cl u d e th at su bstan t i al ev

i d en ce is l acki n g i n cert ai n respects an d we wi l l rem an d t h i s m at t er f o r f u rth er p ro ce ed in g s. I. R od r i gu ez w orked f

or man y year s as a mach i n e oper at or an d set - u p man f

or a met al sh op . H e was l ai d o f f i n Oct ob er 2 0 0 1 . P ri or t o h i s l ayof f , h e h ad b een d i ag n osedwi t h sy st em

i c lu pu s ery

t h emat osu s (S L E ), an au t oim m u n e d i sease th at c an a f f e c t m ultip le b o dy

s y s te m s , a

nd w a s b e ing tr e ate d b y

D r. H s u, a rh eu mat ol ogi st atth e R obertW oodJoh n son M ed i cal S ch ool . I n S ept em ber of3

2 0 0 1 , Dr . H su ch ar act er i zed R od r i gu ez’ s S L E as mi l d an d n ot ed t h ath e d i d n ot ha v e any s y s te mic f

ind ing s . She a c k

no w le dg e d th at he s uf

f e re d f ro m jo int p a ins , an d sh e o pin ed th ath e may f i n d i td i f f i cu l tt o work as a

mach i n i st . S h e f

u rt h er no t e d thattr a i ni ngf

o r l i g htduty

o r de s k w o rk may b e a p p r o p r i at e . I

n June 200 3, D r . Hs u ’ s p h ys i c a l e x ami n at i o n o f R o d r i gu e z c o n f

i rme d t h e “ l a c k

o f o b j e c t i ve f i n d i n gs f or acti v e S L E . ” T h e f oll owin g mon t h , i n Ju l y

2 0 0 3 , Dr . H su o pin ed t h atRod ri gu ez was u n ab l e to carry

more th an f

i v e p ou n d s an d co u l d st an d an d wal k f or n o more th an a ha lf ho ur. R o drigue z ’s o the r tr e atingp hy s ic ia n, Dr . C ra

m e r, a f amily p r a c t i t i o ne r

w ho f o l l o w e d hi m

s i nc e 197 9, a l s o o p i ne d i n a l e t t e r dat e d June 20, 2 0 0 3 , t h atRod ri gu ez was d i sabled an d u n ab l e to d o work rel at ed p h y si cal a c tiv iti e s . I n ad d i t i on t o Rod ri gu ez’s ph y si cal m al ad y , t h ere wer e also co n cern s rai sed a b o ut h is me nta l s tatus . Ac o nsultative e x aminatio n b y D r. Ba harl ia s in Ap ri l 2 0 0 2 y ield edan o p in ion th at Ro d rigu ezh ada se v ere c o g n it iv e d ef

icitth at m

u st ha v e r e s ulte d f

ro m tw o mo to r v e hic le a c c ide nts and that he w a s de v e lo p ing e arl y d emen t i a. I

n a repo rt d at ed Ju l y

1 , 2 0 0 2 , Dr . Cr amer ad vi sed t h ath e h ad b een tre atin gRo d rigu e z s in c e 1 9 8 3 f o r a n an x ie ty d iso rd e r w ith L o ra z e p am . Dr. Cra m e r re p o rte d th at Ro d rigu e z h a d “ n e v e r hadDe m e n tia .” I n c o n tra st to Dr .4

Bah arl i as’s repo rt , Dr . Cr amer’ s d et ai l ed t h ree pa ge repo rt f ai l ed t o m en t i on t h at Rod ri gu ez h ad ever bee n i n volv ed i n a motor v eh i cl e acc i d en to r su st ai n ed a h ead i nj ur y . D r . C r am e r

o p i ne d, ho w e v e r , t hatR o dr i gue z ’ s anx i e t y di s o r de r c a us e d a

“ d i f f i cu l t y i n f oc u si n g an d mai n t ai n i n g a su st ai n ed co n cen t rat i on o n h i s acti vi t i es wh i ch wou l d i n t erf

ere wi t h an y

work rel at ed p h y si cal act i vi t y . ” Ro drigue z ’s me dic a l r e c o rds w e re r e vie w e d b y D r. Ma c c hia , a

p s yc ho lo g is t, an d Dr. G iese k en . T h ey

c o n clu d edth at Ro d rigu ez ’s a b il it y to p erf o rm mo st m e nt a l a c t i vi t i e s w a s no ts i g ni f i c ant l y l i mi t e d. B utt he y

c he c k e d the b o xo n the f o rm p r o vi de d t o i ndi c at e thatR o dr i gue z ’ s a b i l i t y t o ma i nt a i n at t e nt i o n a

nd c o nc e ntratio n f

o r an e x te nd e d p e ri o d wa s mo de ra te ly li mite d, a s w a s his a

b ili ty to re s p o nd a p p ro p ri ate ly

to c hang e s in h is w o rk

e nvir o nm e nt and to s e t r e a lis tic g o a ls or mak e p l an s i n d ep en d en t l y o f o t h ers. I n t h e n arr at i v e repo rt t h atacco m pa n i ed th e se a ss e ss m e n ts, D r. M a c c h ia an d Dr . G ie se k e n d isc o u n te d Dr . Bah arlia s’ s opi n i on , n ot i n g th ati twa s con t r ad i ct ed by Dr . C r am er ’ s t r eat m en tr ecor d s f r om 1 9 7 9 . T h ese p h y si ci an s cred i t ed Dr . Cr amer’ s assessm en tt h atRod ri gu ez su f f ered f r om a h i st or y of an xi et y an d opi n ed t h atR od r i gu ez’ s abi l i t y t o cope an d ad apt was mod erat el y

l i mi t ed . I

n co n t rast t o t h ei r earl i er assessm en ti n t h e f orm t h at R od r i gu ez’ s abi l i t y

t o mai n t ai n at t en t i on an d con cen t r at i on f or ext en d ed per i od s of time w a s mo de ra

te ly li mite d, th e s e p hy s ic ia

ns s tate d th at R o drigue z w a s a b le to5

c o nc e ntrate and p e rs is t i n ata s k . A f t e r a he ar i ngand c o ns i de r at i o n o f t he me di c a l e vi de nc e , t he a dminis tr ative la

wjud g e ( A L J ) c o nd uc te d th e f amili ar f ive s te p ana ly s is s e t f

o rth in 2 0 C.F.R. § 4 04 .15 20 , a nd c o nc lud e d th at R o drigue z w a s no t dis a b le d. T he D is tr ic t C o urt a f

f irm e d th e f

ina l de c is io n o f

the Co m mis s io ne r. T h i s ap pe al f

oll owed . Rod ri gu ez assert s t h att h e AL J err ed i n several r e s pe c t s . H e c h a l l e n ge s th e A LJ ’ s an a l y s i s ats t e p t h r e e , c on t e n d i n g t h att h e A LJ f ai l ed t o speci f

i cal l y ad d r es s w h et h er

h i s S L E sat i sf

i ed or e q u al ed t h e cr i t er i a of l i s t i ng14. 02 i n a

p p e ndi x1. W e f

i nd n o e rr o r

b y t he A L Ji n thi s r e g ar d. I ti s t r ue t hatt he A L Jdi d no ts p e c i f y the l i s t i ngb y

num b e r . T hi s do e s no tp r e c l ude m e an in g f u l re vie w, h o we v e r, in lig h t o f th e s in g le listing f

o r SL E an d Dr . H su’s o p in io n s in 2 0 0 1 an d Ju n e 2 0 0 3 , wh ic h we re c re d ite d b y th e AL J, that Ro d rigu e z ’s c o nd iti o n wa s mild and that the re w e re no o b je c tive f ind ing s f o r a c tive SL E. A c c o rding ly , the re w a s no b a s is f o r the A L Jto c o nc lud e that R o drigue z ’s SL E s atis f ie d th e s e v e ri ty

r e qu ir e m e nts o f

the li s tingin § 14 .02 . Se eP o u lo s v . Co mm ’r o f So c. Sec. , 4 7 4 F . 3 d 8 8 , 9 3 (2 0 0 7 ) ( po i n t i n g ou tt h atmean i n gf u l revi ew atst ep t h ree i s i n f

orm ed b y th e ext en to f

t h e AL J’ s revi ew of

t h e o bject i v e med i cal e vid e n c e ). Rod ri gu ez also co n t en d s t h att h e AL J err ed b y ref u si n g t o ack

n owled ge t h at6

h e h ad a p sych i atri c im

pa i rm en t . H e su bm

i t s t h att h e AL J i m

prop erl y d i scou n t ed D r. Ba harl ia s ’s o p inio n th at he ha d d e m e ntia and w a s s e v e re ly

c o g nitive ly i m pa i red . W e f

i n d n o err or i n d i scou n t i n g Dr . Bah arl i as’s repo rt s as t h ey c o nf lic te d wi th D r. Cr am e r’ s de ta ile d re p o rt , w hic h wa s e ntitle d to mo re w e ig ht in light o f his s tatus a s Ro drigue z ’s f amily do c to r s inc e 19 79 . A s w e e x p la ine d in P l u mmer v. A

p f el , 18 6 F .3d 42 2 (3d Ci r. 19 99 ), “ [t ]r e atingp hy s ic ia ns’ r e p o rt s sho u ld b e a c c o rd e d g re at we ig h t, e sp e c ia lly ‘w h e n th e ir o p in io n s re f

le c t e x p e rt ju d g m e n t b a se d o n a

c o n tin u in go b se rvatio n o f th e p atie n t’s c o n d itio n o v e r a prolon ge d p eri odo f

t i m e. ’” I d. at4 2 9 ( q u ot i n g R o cco v. Heckler , 826 F . 2d 1 348, 13 50 ( 3d Ci r. 19 87 ); se e a lso 2 0 C.F. R. § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 7 (d )(2). Non eth el ess, we are t rou bled b y t h e AL J’ s eval u at i on o f

Rod ri gu ez’s m en t al im p a irme n t b e c a

u se , a f te r e x p la in in gth e b a sis f

o r di sc o u n tin gDr . Bah arlia s’ s o p i ni o n, t he A L Ja c c o r de d “s i g ni f i c antw e i g ht ” t o t he o p i ni o ns o f D r . Ma c c hi a

and D r . G i e s e k e n o n the b a s i s thatthe i r c o nc l us i o ns w e r e no tc o ntr a di c t e d b y any m ed ica l ev

id en ce in th e rec o rd . T h e o p in ion s o f th es e n o n ex am

in in gp h y sician s, ho w e v e r, w e re inte rna lly

inc o nsi s te nt w ith r e g ard to Ro drigue z ’s a b ili ty to s ust a in co n cen t rat i on . As n oted ab ove, t h e p h y si ci an s ch eck ed t h e b ox t o i n d i cate t h at Ro drigue z ’s a

b ili ty in this r e g ard w a s mo de ra te ly li mite d, and ye t e x

p la ine d in th eir n arrati v e th at h e co u ld c o n ce n trate an d p ers istin an a ctivit y . T h u s, i f we7

assu m e th atth e o pin i on s of Dr . M acch i a an d Dr . G i esek en were t h atRod ri gu ez ha d no l i mi t at i o n i n hi s a b i l i t y t o c o nc e ntr at e f

o r e x t e nde d p e r i o ds o f

t i m e , t he o p inio ns c o nf

lic t w ith that o f

D r. Cr am e r, w ho o p ine d th at R o drigue z ’s anx ie ty d i sor d er cau se d a “ d i f

f i cu l t y i n f ocu si n g an d mai n t ai n i n g a su st ai n ed con cen t r at i on on h i s acti vi t i es wh i ch wou l d i n t erf ere wi t h an y

work rel at ed p h y si cal act i vi t y . ” If we assu m e th atth e o pin i on o f th ese n on ex am

i n i n g ph y si ci an s i s t h atRod ri gu ez h as som e l i mi t at i on i n h i s abi l i t y t o su st ai n con cen t r at i on f or ext en d ed per i od s of t i m e , t he r e i s a

c o ns e ns us amo ngt he p r a c t i t i o ne r s , b o t h no ne x ami ni ngand t r e at i ng , t hatR o dr i gue z ’ s me nt a l i m p a i rm e ntr e s t r i c t e d hi s a

b i l i t y t o f o c us and ma inta in c o nc e ntratio n. U nd e r e ithe r s c e nari o , the A L Jha d to e x p la in w hy he did o r did no t c re dit t h e med i cal evi d en ce th atRod ri gu ez h ad a n on - ex ert i on al l i mi t at i on wi t h respect to h is a b ility to c o n c e n trate f

o r e x te n d e d p e rio d s o f

tim e . I n ste a d , th e AL J’ s de c i s i o n f a i l e d t o c o ns i de r

thi s l i mi t at i o n w hi c h, i f

c r e di t e d, w o ul d p r e c l ude a p p lic atio n o f

the G ri ds. See S

ykes v . A p f el , 228 F . 3d 2 59, 270 ( 3d C i r . 200 0) ( r ei t er at i n g th atth e pr es en ce of n on - exert i on al i m

pai rm en t s pr ecl u d es appl i cat i on o f t he G r i ds ) . A c c o r di ng l y , w e w i l l va c at e t he j udg m e nto f t he D i s t r i c tC o urtandW e a l s o n ot e th atth e A LJ ’ s d e c i s i on i s i n t e rn a l l y i n c on s i s t e n t . Th e A LJ 2 i n i t i al l y f ou n d th atRod ri gu ez’s an xiet y co n st i tu t ed a severe i m

pa i rm en tat st ep two . T h e re a f

te r, h e f o u n d th at Ro d rigu e z “ h a s n o me n ta l d iso rd e r th at is se v e re w i t hi n the de f

i ni t i o n o f the S o c i a l S e c ur i t y

A c t . ” W e ar e ata

l o s s t o und e r s t and h ow Rod ri gu ez may

b e f ou n d t o h ave a severe m en t al i m pa i rm en ti n i t i al l y

an d yet b e f o un d to s uf

f e r no s e v e re me nta l i m

p a irm e nt the re a f

te r. 8 wil l reman d f

o r f u rth er p ro ce ed in g s. 2