T he H o n o rabl e R ober tH ol m es B el l , C hi ef U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge fort he * W es t ern D i s t r i ctof M i chi gan, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.

NO T RE CO M M E ND E D F OR F UL L - T E X T P UB L I CA T I ON

F i l e N am e: 07a0113n. 06 F i l ed: F ebruary 9, 2007 N o. 06- 1236 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

GA RY D. GR I F F E T H, ) ) P l a i n t i f f - Ap p e l l a n t , ) ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE ) UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT v . ) COURT F OR THE EA S TE RN ) DI S TR I CT OF M I CHI GAN COM M I S S I ONER OF S OCI AL ) S EC URI TY , ) ) D ef endant- A ppel l ee. )
B E F O R E : M O O R E and C L A Y , C i rcui t Judges; B E L L , D i s t ri ct Judge. * B E L L , D is tr ic t J u d g e . Pl ai nt i ff G aryD
. G r i ffe t h appe als the di s t r i ctcour tor der aff i r m i ng the C om m i s s i onerof Soci al Secur i t y ’ s deni al of di s abi l i t ybenef i t s . Forth e r eas ons
s etfor th i n t hi s opi ni on w e AF F I RM
. I. G aryD
. G r i ffe t h w as bor n on A pr i l 20, 1947. H e h as a hi gh s chool di pl om a and
w or ked fr om 1965 t hr ough 2001 as a ca rpent er , hi ghw aycontr act or , hi ghw ayfor eman,N o. 06- 1236 2

G riffeth v . C o m m . o

f So c ia l Se c u rity bui l di ng code e nfor cementoffi cerand s chedul er . G r i ffe t h w as l ai d off fr om hi s empl oym ent on Sept ember26, 2001, forr eas ons unr el at ed t o hi s al l eged di s abi l i t y , and he ha s notw or ked
s i nce thatdat e. G r i ffe t h appl i ed for Soci al Secur i t yD i s abi l i t yI ns ur ance B enef i t s on J ul y2, 2002, al l egi ng di s abi l i t ydue t o l i m i t at i ons caus ed byhi s col os t om y , s houl der pai n, back pa i n, knee p a i n , d i f f i c u l t y s l e e p i n g , d e p r e s s i o n , a n d p r o b l e ms wi t h me mo r ya n d c o n c e n t r a t i o n . An A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) det erm i ned t hat G r i ffe t h’ s degene r at i ve di s c di s eas e and dep res si on w ere “s e v ere” i m pairm ents . T he A L J det erm i ned , ho w ever, that these i m pai rm ent s w o u ld h ave l i t t l e ef fec ton G r i ffe t h’ s abi l i t yt o per form bas i c w or k- r el at ed
a c ti v itie s. T h e A L J d e n ied d isa b ili tyb e n e f its b a se d u p o n h is d e ter m in a tio n th a t G rif f e th
r et ai ned the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t y t o per form hi s pas t r el evant w or k as a s chedul erand code e nfor cementoffi cer . T he A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed hi s r eques tforr evi ew . G r i ffe t h fi l ed f o r ju d ici al rev iew
. T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted th e C o m m issi o n er’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entand af

fi r m ed the fi nal or derdeny i ng benef i t s . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. II. J udi ci al r evi ew of a f

i nal deci s i on of the C om m i s s i onerof S oci al Secur i t yi s l i m i t ed t o det erm i ni ng w hethert he A L J appl i ed the corr ect l egal s t andar ds i n r eac hi ng hi s deci s i on and w hethert here i s sub st anti al evidence in the record t o sup po rthis fi nd i ng s. L o n g w o rth v. C o m m ’r S o c. Sec. , 402 F. 3d 591, 595 ( 6th C i r . 2005)
. T he C om m i s s i oner ’ s fi ndi ngs of fa ct, “if su p p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce , sh all b e c o n clus ive.” 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 4 0 5 (g).N o. 06- 1236 3

G riffeth v . C o m m . o

f So c ia l Se c u rity

A l t hough G r i ffe t h or i gi nal l yr ai s ed fouri s s ues o n appeal , ator al ar gum enthe 1 w i thdr ew hi s t hi r d i s s ue r egar di ng us e of the gr i d. A ll th re e iss u e s G rif

f e th h a s ra ise d o n a p p e a l ste m f ro m th e A L J ’ s f

in d in g th a t h is 1 depr es s i on w as a “s ever e” i m pai r m ent . G r i ffe t h cont ends t hat gi ven t hatfi ndi ng, t her e w as nots ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor t t r eat i ng t he i m pai r m ent as non- s ever e; i tw as i ncons i s t ent t o fi nd thatG r i ffe t h had onl ym i l d li m it ati o n s i n the degr ee of funct i onal l os s ; and i tw as i m pr opert o om i t t he “s ever e” i m pai r m entfr om t he hypothet i cal gi ven t o the voca t i onal
e x p e rt. T he Commi s s i o n e ru s e s a f i v e s t ep s equent i al eval uat i on pr oces s t o det erm i ne w hether a cl ai m anti s di s abl ed. 20 C
. F
. R
. § 4 0 4
. 1520( a) ( 1)
. A tt he s econd s t ep of the s equent i al
ev alua ti o n p roc ess, th e C o m m issi o n er m u st de term ine w h e th er the claim an t has a se v ere im p a ir m e n t. § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (a )(4 )(ii)
. T he r egul at i ons defi ne a “ s ever e” i m pai r m entas one
w h ich “ sign ifi ca n tl yli m it s” th e c lai m an t' s p h y sical or m en tal ab il ityto d o b asic w o rk
ac ti v it ies. ” § 4 0 4
. 1 5 2 0 (c). A t st ep tw o o f th e se q u en ti al ev alua ti o n p roc ess th e A L J f o u n d that G ri ff

eth’s depr es s i on caus ed s om e l i m i t at i ons on G r i ffe t h’ s abi l i t y t o per form s om e bas i c w or k- r el at ed act i vi t i es , and ther efor e conc l uded that i t w as a “s ever e” i m pai r m ent w i t hi n t he m eani ng of the r egul at i o n s . Th e ALJ d e t e rmi ned, how ever , thatG r i ffe t h’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he ext ent of hi s l i m i t at i ons w as notcr edi bl e. T he A L J concl uded t hatG r i ffe t h’ s depr es s i on r es ul t ed in o n lym ild lim itatio n s o n h is a b ili tyto p e rf o rm a c tiv itie s o f

d a ilyliv in g a n d to m a in tainN o. 06- 1236 4

G riffeth v . C o m m . o

f So c ia l Se c u rity
a tten tio n a n d c o n c e n tra tio n f o r e x ten d e d p e rio d s, a n d th a t ith a d little e f f e c t o n h is a b ili tyto per form bas i c w or k act ivi t i es . T he A L J det erm i ned thatG r i ffe t h r et ai ned the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t y( “R FC ”) t o per form hi s past relev an t w or k as a s chedul erand code enfor cementoffi cer . I f ats t ep fourof the s equent i al eval uat i on pr oces s the A L J fi nds t hat an i ndi vi dual ’ s R FC al l ow s hi m t o per form w o r k he has done i n the pas t , a fi ndi ng of not d isa b led w ill b e m a d e . 2 0 C .F .R
. § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (f ). T h e A L J ac c o rd in g ly d e n ie d d is a b ili ty ben efi t s atst ep fo ur of t he sequ enti al evaluat i on process. G r i ffe t h’ s fi r s tcont ent i on i s that t he A L J ’ s anal y s i s w as nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence
. Subst ant i al evi dence i s “s uch r el evant evi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc ept
as adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ” B u x to n v . Ha lte r, 246 F. 3d 762, 772 ( 6th C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng R i char ds on v. P er al es , 4 0 2 U .S
. 3 8 9 , 4 0 1 (1 9 7 1 )). It is “ m o re th a n a m e re sc in til la of evi dence , but l es s t han a pr eponder ance . ” B el l v. C om m ’ r of Soc. Sec. , 105 F. 3d 244, 245 ( 6th C i r . 1996) ( ci t i ng Con s o l i da t ed E di s o n Co. v . NLRB , 3 0 5 U
. S
. 1 9 7 , 2 2 9 (19 3 8 )). “If
s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s t he C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on, this C our tw i l l defe rt o t hat fi ndi ng ‘ even i f ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n the r ecor d t hatw oul d have s uppor t ed an oppos i t e conc l us i on. ’ ” L o n g w o rth , 402 F. 3d at595 ( ci t i ng W ar nerv. C om m ’ r of Soc. Sec. , 3 7 5 F
. 3 d 3 8 7 , 3 9 0 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 4 )). A l thoug h t he r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence thatG r i ffe t h s uffe r s fr om depr es s i on, G r iffe th’ s fami l ydoct or , D r . O l i ver , i ndi cat ed thathi s depr es s i ve s ym pt om s w er e under
r eas onabl e contr ol as l ong as he s t ay ed on hi s m edi cat i on. G r i ffe t h’ s t her api s t , J err yW al den,N o. 06- 1236 5

G riffeth v . C o m m . o

f So c ia l Se c u rity i ndi cat ed thatG r i ffe t h’ s emot i onal w el l bei ng and abi l i t yt o conce ntr at e i m pr oved w hen he
w a s a b le to g e t ad e q u a te r e st a n d d id n o t p u sh h im s e lf p h y sic a lly . D r. K ra u se , the sta te agenc yps y chi atr i s t , found that G r i ffe t h had onl y m i l d funct i onal l i m i t at i ons i n dai l yl i vi ng act i vi t i es and mai nt ai ni ng conce nt r at i on, and t hat he had no di ffi cul t i es i n m ai nt ai ni ng s oci al funct i oni ng and no epi s odes of dec om pens at i on of ext ended dur at i on. T h e re c o rd a lso c o n tain s e v id e n c e th a t G rif f e th w a s a b le to e n g a g e in a w id e v a rie ty of d ai l yact i vit i es i ncludi ng coo king, vis i t i ng fri end s, fi shi ng , helpi ng fri end s w i t h p roj ect s,
w or ki ng i n hi s w ood- w or ki ng s hop, doi ng m i norm ai nt enanc e on hi s apart m entbui l di ng,
m ow i ng hi s l aw n, at t endi ng chur ch, and r i di ng hi s m ot or cy cl e. H e has al s o t aken tr i ps out of st at e and ov ers eas. Gr i f f e t h d o e s n o tc h a l l e n g e t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e o n wh i c h t h e AL J r e l i e d
. He d o e s n o ts u g g e s tt h a tt h e r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e d g r e a t e r l i mi t a t i o n s t h a n t h o s e f o u n d b yt h e ALJ
nordoes he s ugges tt hathi s pas tj obs r equi r ed dut i es i ncompat i bl e w i t h t he l i m i t at i ons found b ythe A L J. H e m ere lyco n tend s tha t th e e v iden ce is no t su f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rtthe A L J’s concl us i on. W e di s agr ee. R eas onabl e mi nds coul d acc eptth e m edi cal evi dence and G r i ffe th’ s ow n t es t i m onyconce r ni ng hi s dai l ya c t i v i t i e s a s a d e q u a t e t o s uppor tthe conc l us i on that hi s depressi on h as l i t t l e effect on h i s abi l i t yt o p erform basi c w ork-r el at ed acti vit i es. A ccor di ngl y , t he A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence
. G r i ffe t h’ s s econd c ont ent i on i s thatthe A L J’s anal y s i s w as i nt ernal l yi ncons i s t ent b e c a u s e h e c l a s s i f

i e d Gr i f f e t h ’ s i mp a i r me n ta s “ s e v e r e ” b u ttr e a t e d i t a s “ n o n - s e v e r e . ” AtN o. 06- 1236 6

G riffeth v . C o m m . o

f So c ia l Se c u rity step tw o o f th e seq u en ti al ev alua ti o n p roc ess th e A L J d eterm ined that b ec au s e G ri f f e th’s d e p re ss io n w a s a m e d ica llyd e ter m in a b le im p a irm e n t th a t ca u se d “ so m e ” lim itatio n s o f h is abi l i tyt o per form “s om e” bas i c w or k- r el at ed act i vi t i es , i t w as a “se ver e” i m pai r m ent . L at er in h is a n a ly sis h e d e ter m in e d th a t G rif f e th ’s d e p re ss io n h a d o n lya m in im a l ef f e c t o n h is abi l i tyt o conce nt r at e. T he r egul at i ons defi ne a “s ever e” i m pai r m ent as “anyi m pai r m entorcombi nat i on of im p airm en ts w h ich s ign ifi ca n tl yli m it s y o u r ph y sical or m en tal a b il ityto d o b asic w o rk act i vi t i es . ” 20 C
. F. R
. § 404. 1 5 2 0 (c). G r i ffe t h cont ends thatthe A L J ’ s fi ndi ng of “s om e”
r athert han “s i gni fi cant ” l i m i t at i ons w as i m pr operand l ed to an inappropr i at e fi ndi ng of
n o n -disab il ityat st ep fo u r. T h e A L J d id n o t m isin terp re t th e se v e rityre g u latio n . A t ste p tw o “ s ig n if ica n t” is li b era ll yc o n s tr u e d in f

av o r of the c lai m an t. T h e re g u lat ion s p rov ide th at i f th e c lai m an t’ s degr ee of

l i m i t at i on i s none orm i l d, the C om m i s s i onerw il l g en eral l yconcl ude the i m pai rm enti s not s ever e, “unl es s t he evi dence otherw i s e i ndi cat es t hatt her e i s m or e than a
m i ni m al l i m i t at i on i n y our abi l i t y t o do bas i c w or k act i vi t i es . ” 20 C FR § 404. 1520a( d)
. T he purpos e of the s econd s t ep of the s equent i al anal y s i s i s t o enabl e the C om m i s s i onert o s cr een out“t ot al l ygr oundl es s cl ai m s . ” Fa r r is v . S e c ’ y o f HHS , 7 7 3 F
. 2 d 8 5 , 8 9 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 8 5 )
. We have c ons trued the s t ep tw o s ever i t yr egul at i on as a “ de m i nim is h u rd le” in th e d isa b ili ty d e te rm in a tio n p ro c e s s . Higgs v. B ow en , 880 F. 2d 860, 862 ( 6th C i r . 1988)
. U ndera Soci al S ec u ri typ o li cyruli n g , if an im p airm en t has “m o re tha n a m inim al ef fe ct” o n the c lai m an t’ sN o. 06- 1236 7

G riffeth v . C o m m . o

f So c ia l Se c u rity abi li ty to d o bas i c w or k act i vi t i es , t he A L J i s r equi r ed t o t r eati tas “s ever e. ” SSR 96- 3p (July2 , 1 9 9 6 ). T h e A L J’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t G rif f e th ’s d e p re ss io n c a u se d “ so m e ” lim itatio n o f h is ab il ityto d o w o rk ac ti v ityis co n sist en t w ith a f ind ing that G ri ff

eth’s d ep ression ca u sed m o re than a mi ni m al l i m i t at i on i n hi s abi l i t yt o do bas i c w or k act i vi t i es . T he A L J ’ s fi ndi ng t hat th e lim itatio n w a s m o re th a n m in im a l, ho w e v e r, w a s n o t in h e re n tlyin c o n s is ten t w ith h is fi ndi ng thatt he l i m i t at i on has “l i t t l e eff ect ” on t he cl ai m ant ’ s abi l i t yt o per form bas i c w or kr el at ed ac t i vi t i es . B eca us e the A L J gave G r i ffe t h t he benefi t of t he doubt at s t ep t w o of the sequen t i al analy si s, t he A L J w ent on t o co nsi der not onlyG ri ffeth’ s “severe” i m pairm ents , butal l of G r i ffe t h’ s ot heri m pai r m ent s as w el l , and made hi s det erm i nat i on bas ed upon the eff ect s of the combi nat i on of i m pai r m ent s on G r i ffe t h’ s abi l i t yt o per form bas i c w or k- r el at ed
a c tiv itie s . See 20 C
. F. R
. § 404. 1545( e) ( “W hen y ou have a s ever e i m pai r m ent ( s ) , buty our
s ym pt om s , s i gns , and l abor at or yfi ndi ngs do not m eet or equal t hos e of a l i s t ed i m pai r m ent in A p p en d ix 1 o f this su b p art, w e w il l con side r th e li m it ing ef fe cts o f a ll y o u r i m p airm en t( s),
e v e n th o se th a t ar e n o t s e v e r e , in d e ter m in in g y o u r re sid u a l f u n c tio n a l ca p a c ity .”). T h is
e x p a n d e d re v iew w o rk e d to G rif f e th ’s b e n e f

it, n o t to h is d e trim e n t. F u rt h e rm o re , e v e n if

th e A L J e rr o n e o u s ly f

o u n d G ri f

f e th ’s d e p re s s io n to b e “ s e v e re ,”
s uch an e rr oneous fi ndi ng w as , atm os t , harm l es s err or , beca u se w e h av e al r eadyfound
s ub stan ti al evi dence t o s uppor tt he fi ndi ng of “notdi s abl ed” a ts t ep four
. W e ar e not
re q u ir e d to re m a n d w h e re to d o s o w o u ld b e a n id le a n d u s e le s s f o rm a lity. W

il so n v. C o m m ’rN o. 06- 1236 8

G riffeth v . C o m m . o

f So c ia l Se c u rity of Soc. Sec. , 378 F. 3d 541, 547 ( 6t h C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng N LR B v. W ym an- G or don , 39 4 U. S. 7 5 9 , 7 6 6 n . 6 (19 6 9 )). G r i ffe t h’ s fi nal as s i gnm entof err ori s that the h ypothet i cal gi ven t o the A L J w as fl aw ed bec aus e i t cont ai ned no l i m i t at i ons r el at ed t o hi s “s ever e” i m pai r m entof depr es s i on. A ccor di ng t o G r i ffe t h, beca us e t he hypot het i cal w as fl aw ed, t he vocat i onal expert ’ s opi ni on di d notcons t i tut e s ubs t ant ial ev idence t o s uppor tt he A L J ’ s concl us i on ats t ep fourof the
s equent i al anal y s i s t hatG r i ffe t h w as abl e t o per form hi s pas tr el evantw or k. “Subs t ant i al evi dence m aybe prod u ce d t hr ough r el i ance on t he t es t i m onyof a
v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt in re sp o n se to a ‘h yp o th e tica l’ q u e stio n , b u t o n ly‘if th e q u e stio n a c c u ra tely port r ay s [pl ai nt i ff’ s ] i ndi vi dual phy s i cal and ment al i m pai r m ent s . ’ ” V a r l e y v . S e c ’ y HHS , 820 F. 2d 777, 779 ( 6t h C i r . 1987) ( quot i ng P o d e dw o rny v . H a rr is , 7 4 5 F
. 2 d 2 1 0 , 2 1 8 (3d C ir
. 1984) )
. I n H

ow ar d v. C om m ’ rof

Soc. Sec
. , 276 F. 3d 235 ( 6th C i r . 2002) , w e found t hatthe
ex clus ion of the cl ai m ant ’ s m aj ordepr es s i ve di s or derfr om the hypothet i cal di d not
acc ur at el ydes cr i be the cl ai m ant ’ s i m pai r m ent s , and ac cor di ngl yhel d thatt he voca t i onal
ex p ert’s t esti m o n yin reli an ce o n the h yp o thetical w as n o t sub stan ti al ev iden ce fo r th e A L J’s concl us i on t hatt he cl ai m antcoul d per form “otherw or k. ” 276 F. 3d at241. T he r egul at i ons perm i t an A L J t o us e t he servi ces of a voc at i onal expertats t ep four t o d e t e r mi n e wh e t h e ra c l a i mant c a n d o h i s p a s tr e l e v a n two r k , g i v e n h i s RF C. 2 0 C. F
. R. § 4 0 4 .1 5 6 0 ( b )(2 ). R F C is a n a ss e ss m e n t o f th e m o st a c laim a n t ca n still d o d e sp ite h is l i m i t at i ons . 20 C
. F. R
. § 404. 1545( a) ( 1)
. T he R FC des cr i bes “th e c l a i mant ’ s r es i dual abi l i t i esN o. 06- 1236 9

G riffeth v . C o m m . o

f So c ia l Se c u rity
orw hata cl ai m antcan do, notw hat m al adi es a cl ai m ants uffe r s fr om – t hough t he mal adi es
w ill c e rt a in ly in f

o rm th e A L J ’s c o n c lu s io n a b o u t th e c la im a n t’ s a b iliti e s .” H ow ard , 276 F. 3d
a t 2 4 0 . “ A c laim a n t’s se v e re im p a irm e n t m a y o r m a y n o t af f e c t h is o r h e r f

u n c tio n a l ca p a c ity t o do w or k. O ne does no t nece s s ar i l yes t abl i s h the other
. ” Y ang v. C om m ’ rof

Soc. Sec. , N o . 0 0 -1 0 4 4 6 -B C , 2 0 0 4 W L 1 7 6 5 4 8 0 , a t * 5 (E .D
. M ic h
. J u ly 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 ). H ow arddoes not
s t and fort he pr opos i t i on t hat al l i m pai r m ent s deemed “s ever e” i n s t ep t w o m us tbe i ncl uded in th e hyp o thetical. T h e reg u lat ion s rec o g n ize th at ind ividu als w h o h av e th e sa m e s e v ere i m pai rm entm ayhave di ffe r entR FC s dependi ng on thei rot heri m pai r m ent s , pai n, and other sym p tom s. 2 0 C
. F
. R
. § 4 0 4
. 1 5 4 5 (e). “The rul e that a hypot het i cal ques t i on m us t i ncorpor at e al l of the cl ai m ant ’ s phy s i cal
a n d m e n tal lim itatio n s d o e s n o t d iv e st th e A L J o f h is o r h e r o b lig a tio n to a ss e ss c re d ib ili ty and det erm i ne t he fact s . ” R edf i eld v. C om m ’ rof

Soc. Sec
. , 3 6 6 F
. S u p p . 2 d 4 8 9 , 4 9 7 ( E
. D. M i ch. 2 0 0 5 )
. I n f

a s h i o n i n g a h yp o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n t o b e p o s e d t o a v o c a t i o n a l e x p e r t , t he A L J is re q u ir e d to i n c o r p o ra te o n ly th o s e lim ita tio n s th a t h e a c c e p ts a s c re d ib le
. C as ey v . S e c ' y o f HHS , 98 7 F. 2d 12 30 , 12 35 (6th C i r. 19 93 ). A n A L J i s no t requi red t o accep t a cl ai m ant ’ s s ubj ect i ve compl ai nt s , and “c an pr es enta hypot het i cal t o t he V E on t he bas i s of hi s ow n as s es s m ent i f he r eas onabl y deems the cl ai m ant ’ s t es t i m onyt o be i nacc ur at e. ” Jones
v. C om m ’ rof

Soc. Sec
. , 3 3 6 F
. 3 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 6 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). In th is c a se th e A L J f

o u n d th a t G rif

f e th ’s a ss e rtio n th a t h e w a s u n a b le to w o rk d u e to depr es s i on w as nots uppor t ed bythe r ecor d as a w hol e and w as notcr edi bl e. T heN o. 06- 1236 10

G riffeth v . C o m m . o

f So c ia l Se c u rity hypoth eti cal t he A L J pos ed t o t he voca t i on expertw as cons i s t entw i t h t he A L J ’ s fac tual d e ter m in a tio n th a t G rif

f e th w a s a b le to e n g a g e in lig h t w o rk a n d th a t h is d e p re ss io n h a d little eff ect on hi s abi l i t y t o per form bas i c w or k- r el at ed act i vi t i es . T he vocat i onal expertt es t i fi ed thats uch a pe r s on coul d per form G r i ffe t h’ s pas t r el evant w or k as a code e nfor cementoffi cer
an d sch ed u ler. T h e v o ca ti o n al ex p ert’s t esti m o n yco n sti tuted su b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rt the A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on t hat G r i ffe t h w as abl e t o per form hi s pas t r el evant w or k and w as not di s abl ed. III . Fort he r eas ons s t at ed, w e AF F I RM t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on uphol di ng t he C om m i ssi on er’ s fi nal or der den y i ng dis abil i tyben efi t s.