2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-30-2008 

# Hu ghes v . C omm S o c i al S ec urity P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3656

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Hu ghe s v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 297. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/297The Honorable L ouis H. Poll ak, Senior District Judge f or the United States District * Court for the Ea stern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 1 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. 07- 3656

_____________ PA TR I CI A B. H U G H ES, 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 r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 06- cv- 01649 D istric t Ju d g e : T h e H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to S u b m itted P u rsua n t t o T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a)

O ct ober23, 2008 B e f o re : R E N D E L L a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges , a n d P OL L AK , D is tr i ct

Judge * ( Fi l ed: O ct ober30, 2008) OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge .2

P atri cia B . H u g h es a p p ea ls from the ju d g m en t of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, w hi ch af fi r m ed the deni al byt he C om m i s s i oner of Soci al Secur i t yof H ughes ’ appl i cat i on fordi s abi l i t yi ns ur ance benef i t s . T he D i s t r i ct C our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) . W e exe r ci s e appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o det erm i ni ng w hethert her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tt he C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on. 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) . Subst ant i al e v id e n c e is “ su c h re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s a re a so n a b le m in d m ig h t ac c e p t as a d e q u a te to s uppor ta conc l us i on. ” R i char ds on v. P er al es , 402 U . S. 389, 401 ( 1971) ( i nt ernal q u o t a t i o n ma r k s a n d c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) . W e wi l l a f f i rm. H ughes s us t ai ned an i nj ur yt o herr i ghthi p w hen s he s l i pped atw or k i n J anuaryof 2002. A l t hough a batt eryof di agnos t i c s tudi es w er e per for m ed, and s ever al di agnos es w er e rul ed out , no defi ni t i ve di agnos i s w as m ade. I n A pr i l of 2003, D r . G i bs on document ed thatt r eatm ent“has notbeen t err i bl ys ucce s s ful . ” H e expr es s ed hi s bel i ef th a t sh e h a d a to tal d isa b ili tya n d o p in e d th a t h e still fe lt th a t “h e r d iag n o sis is lik e ly cons i s t entw i t h m us cl e l i gament ous caps ul art ear. . . . ” In O c to b e r o f

2 0 0 3 , D r. G ib so n d o c u m e n ted th a t th e re su lts o f se v e ra l d iag n o stic s tudi es w er e nega t i ve and thathe thought“thats he i s perm anent l yand t ot al l ydi s abl ed. ” In M a yo f

th e f o llo w in g y e a r, D r. G ib s o n o p in e d th a t H u g h e s ’ r ig h t h ip w a s “ th e s a m e . . .

. She i s l eftw i t h a perm anentdi s abi l i t yaboutherr i ghthi p w hi ch i s s i gni fi cant . I fee l t her e i s no ot hert r eatm entavai l abl e att hi s t i m e. ” H e pr es cr i bed pai n m edi cat i on and3

n o ted th a t h e w o u ld se e h e r a s n e e d e d . In re sp o n se to a re q u e st b yth e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s t r at i on fori nfor m at i on aboutH ughes ’ m edi cal s t atus , D r . G i bs on document ed t hatH ughes compl ai ned of pa i n i n herr i ghtgr oi n and thatan exha us t i ve w or k up had been ne gat i ve foranyobj ect i ve fi ndi ngs . D r . G i bs on opi ned thats he had a chr oni c s oft t i s s ue i nj ur yof the r i ghthi p, and thatherpr ognos i s w as poor . I n addi t i on, D r . G i bs on compl et ed a f

or m r egar di ng H ughes ’ abi l i t yt o do phy s i cal w ork- r el at ed ac t i vi t i es , and r epor t ed thats he w as unabl e t o per for m t he ful l r ange of s edent aryw or k beca us e of l i m i t at i ons i n herabi l i t yt o l i ft , t o carr y , t o s i t , t o s t and, t o w al k, and t o per for m pos tur al m a n e u v e rs . O n D ece m ber15, 2005, H ughes t es t i fi ed dur i ng a hea r i ng befor e an A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge ( A L J ) . She des cr i bed the or i gi n of heri nj ur yand expl ai ned t h a ts h e w a s u n a b l e t o w o r k b e c a u s e o f l i m i t a t i o n s a r i s i n g f

r o m h e ri n

j u r y. I n J anuaryof 2006, D r . G i bs on agai n r es ponded t o a r eques tfr om t he Soci al Secur i t yA dm i ni s t r at i on. H e document ed thathe had l as tt r eat ed H ughes i n Sept emberof 2005, and thats he cont i nued t o compl ai n of chr oni c i nfl amm at or yt ype pai n i n herr i ght groi n. O bject i ve findings, ho w ever, w ere negati ve. D r. G i bson ’s diagnosi s of H ug hes’ c o n d iti o n c h a n g e d slig h tlyf ro m c h ro n ic s o f

t ti ss u e in

ju ryo f th e rig h t h ip to “ c h ro n ic s t r ai n r i ghtgr oi n, unr el ent i ng and uni m pr oved. ” H erpr ognos i s , D r . G i bs on opi ned, w as s t i l l poor , and s he r emai ned unabl e t o per for m t he ful l r ange of s edent aryw or k. I n a dec i s i on dat ed J anuary27, 2006, t he A L J deni ed H ughes ’ s appl i cat i on for4

b e n e f its . T h e A L J a p p lie d th e f iv e s te p s e q u e n tia l a n a lysis s e t f o rt h in 2 0 C .F .R . 

### § 404. 1520. A ts t ep one, he found thatH ughes had notengage d i n anys ubs t ant i al gai nful a c tiv ity. S te p tw o re q u ir e d th e A L J to d e te rm in e if H u g h e s h a d a s e v e re im p a ir m e n t. I d. at§ 404. 1520( a) ( 4) ( i i ) . H e conc l uded thats he di d nothave s ever e i m pai r m entand w as n o t d is a b le d f

o r p u rp o s e s o f

S o c ia l S e c u ri ty. T he A L J expl ai ned thatH ughes had t o pr ove thats he had a phy s i cal i m pai r m entby offe r i ng “medi cal evi dence , cons i s t i ng of s i gns , s ym pt om s , and l abor at or yfi ndi ngs . ” A l t hough t he A L J acknow l edged H ughes ’ compl ai nt s of chr oni c pai n i n herr i ghthi p, gr oi n, and l eg, he poi nt ed outt hat“des pi t e an e xhaus t i ve di agnos t i c w or k up, no m edical l ydeterm i nab l e i m pairm ent has been est abli shed thatw ou l d acco un tfor t hese s ym pt om s . ” H e al s o cons i der ed the medi cal evi dence , i ncl udi ng t he document at i on fr om hert r eat i ng phy s i ci an D r . G i bs on. H e gave l i t t l e w ei ghtt o D r . G i bs on’ s opi ni on, how ever , as hi s pr ogr es s not es fai l ed t o “s etfor t h anyobj ect i ve bas i s fort he as s i gned phy s i cal l i m i t at i ons . ” The A L J s peci fi ed that“the onl ycl i ni cal fi ndi ng [D r . G i bs on] des cr i bes i s ‘ pai n ( r i ght ) gr oi n, ’ w hi ch i s a s ubj ect i ve s ym pt om and nota fi ndi ng and he s peci fi cal l yadmi t s t hatexhaus t i ve w or k up w as negat i ve forobj ect i ve fi ndi ngs . ” I n t he abs ence of anyobj ect i ve fi ndi ngs , t he A L J concl uded thatH ughes had fa i l ed t o m eether bu rden of

proof atst ep tw o in the an al y si s. H ughes ’ appea l t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as uns ucce s s ful . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. She ar gues t hatt he A L J err ed bec aus e the bur den ats t ep tw o i s de mi ni m i s and the evi dence5

sh e a d d u c e d w a s s u f

f icie n t to d e m o n stra te th a t sh e h a d a se v e re im p a irm e n t. R egu l at i on § 4 04 . 15 08 speci fi es that an i nd i vidual ’s i m pai r m entm us tr es ul tfr om anat om i cal , phy s i ol ogi cal , orps y chol ogi cal abnorm al i t i es w hi ch ca n be s how n bym edi cal l yacc ept abl e cl i ni cal and l abor at or ydi agnos t i c t echni ques . A phy s i cal . . . i m pai r m entm us tbe es t abl i s hed bym edi cal evi dence cons i s t i ng of s i gns , s ym pt om s , and l abo rat oryfi nd i ng s, no ton l ybyy ou r s t at em ent of sym ptom s. 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 0 8 . R e g u latio n 4 0 4 .1 5 2 8 e x p lain s th a t “[ s]ig n s a re a n a to m ica l, phy s i ol ogi cal , orps y chol ogi cal abnorm al i t i es w hi ch ca n be obs erved, apartfr om y our s t at ement s ( s ym pt om s ) . . . . T heym us tal s o be s how n byobs ervabl e fa ct s t hatcan be m edi cal l ydes cr i bed and e val uat ed. ” 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1528( b) . L abor at or yfi ndi ngs can be sho w n b ym edical l yaccep t able l abo rat orydiagnost i c t echn i qu es, chem i cal t est s, el ectr ophy s i ol ogi cal s tudi es , and x- r ay s . 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1528( c) . E xampl es of obj ect i ve m edi cal fi ndi ngs ar e s etfor t h i n 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1529( c) ( 2) , i ncl udi ng “r educe d j oi nt m ot i on, m us cl e s pas m , s ens or ydefi ci t , orm ot ordi s rupt i on. ” W e ar e s ym pathet i c t o H ughes ’ pr edi cament , butw e do notfi nd anyerr ori n t he ALJ ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n o f

t h e s e r e g u l a t i o n s t o t h e me d i c a l e v i d e n c e o f r e c o r d . As t h e ALJ not ed, D r . G i bs on’ s as s es s m ent s w er e uns uppor t ed byobj ect i ve fi ndi ngs . D r . G i bs on a c k n o wl e d g e d t h i s v e r yf a c ti n r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t yAd mi n i s t r a t i o n ’ s t wo r eques t s fori nfor m at i on. N ot i cea bl yabs entfr om t hi s r ecor d i s anydocument at i on re g a rd in g th e e x a m p le s o f o b je c tiv e m e d ic a l f

in d in g s c ite d in re g u la tio n § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 9 (c )( 2 ). W e conc l ude thatt her e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tt he A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hat6

H ughes di d nothave a m edi cal l ydet erm i nabl e s ever e i m pai r m entt hatm eet s t he 12- m ont h dur at i on r equi r ement . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt .