2005 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 12-8-2005 

# C l aib orne v . C omm S o c i al S ecurity 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 . 05-1589

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

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 ll anova 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 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C l aiborne v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 138. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/138NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E 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. 05- 1589

________________ STAN LEY C LAI BO RN E,

Appel 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 Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 03- cv- 00188) D is tr ic t J u d g e : H o n o ra b le J o s e p h A . G re e n a w a y , J r.

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a) N ovember14, 2005 B e f o re : R O T H , F U E N T E S a n d B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber8, 2005 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudge . St anl eyC l ai bor ne, w ho s oughtSoci al Secur i t yt ot al di s abi l i t ybenef i t s on acc ount o f c ard iov asc u lar an d b ac k p rob lem s, ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary2

j udgm entt o t he C om m i s s i onerof Soci al Secur i t y , w ho had uphel d t he dec i s i on of an A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge ( A L J ) deny i ng r el i ef t o C l ai borne. W e af fi r m . B eca us e the par t i es ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he bac kgr ound fac t s and pr ocedur al hi s t ory , w e nee d nots et them fo rth , an d li m ito u r discu ssion to o u r ra tio d e c id e n d i. T h e A L J fo u n d that, alth o u g h C lai b o rne ’s ca rdiac an d b ac k d isord ers w ere sev ere i m pai r m ent s , he di d nothave a n i m pai r m entthatm etthe r equi r ement s of anyi m pai r m ent l i s t ed i n A ppendi x 1 of 20 C . F. R . , Par t404, Subpar tP ( “Li s t i ng of I m pai r m ent s ”) . T he A L J fur t herfound thatC l ai bor ne r et ai ned the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yforl i ghtw or k, and coul d r etur n t o hi s pas tr el evantw or k. A ts t ep fi ve of the C om m i s s i oner ’ s s equent i al eval uat i on pr oces s , t he A L J cons i der ed C l ai borne’ s r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yforl i ght w o rk , h is a g e , ed u c a tio n a n d p a st re lev a n t w o rk e x p e rie n c e . R e ly in g u p o n M e d ica lV ocat i onal R ul e 202. 18, s etfor t h at20 C . F. R . , Par t404, Subpar tP, A ppendi x 2, he c o n c l u d e d t h a tCl a i b o r n e wa s c a p a b l e o f p e r f o r mi n g o t h e rwo r k i n th e n a t i o n a l e c o n o my a n d th u s w a s n o t u n d e r a d isa b ili tyw 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 he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatthe A L J pr oper l yr el i ed on evi dence fr om C lai b o rne ’s trea ti n g p h y sici an s an d p rop erlyw eigh ed the m ed ical ev iden ce in the en ti re r ecor d. I tfound thatt he A L J ’ s expl anat i on of hi s det erm i nat i on ats t ep thr ee of the s equent i al eval uat i on ( t he “l i s t i ngs ”) w as adequa t e and s uppor t ed byboth t he obj ect i ve m ed ical ev iden ce an d b ythe f ind ing that C lai b o rne ’s su b jecti v e c o m p lai n ts of

p ain w ere n o t cred ible to the d isab li n g ex tent all eg ed . In su m , the D istri ct C o u rth eld th at th e A L J’sA l t h o u g h D r . P e ys e rw a s a n o n - e x a m i n i n g p h ys i c i a n , h i s t e s t i m o n y w a s s u p p o r t e d b y, 1 an d co n sist en t w ith , the o p inion o f D r. M il lm an (also a ca rdio log ist ), an d w ith the re co rd as a w hol e, w hi ch des cr i bes car di ac c athet er i zat i ons , C l ai borne’ s vi s i t s t o D r . M i l l m an, and s ever al emer gencyr oom vi s i t s forhi s car di ac c ondi t i on. 3 fi ndi ng t hatC l ai bor ne’ s r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yw as cons i s t entw i t h l i ghtw or k w as s u p p o rt e d b yth e m e d ic a l e v id e n c e a n d C la ib o rn e ’s o w n te s tim o n y . C l ai bor ne r ai s es s ever al i s s ues on appea l . Fi r s tand for emost , he cont ends thatt he A L J’s re p o rt is f

law e d b e c a u se it fa iled to id e n tifyw h ich listin g h e d id n o t m e e t. W h ile t he A L J ’ s expl i cat i on of hi s r at i onal e w i t h r es pectt o t he l i s t i ngs i s notcar eful l ypar s ed, hi s di s cus s i on of the medi cal evi dence , w hi ch i s adequa t e, s uppor t s hi s concl us i on about t he l i s t i ngs . C l ai bor ne has notpoi nt ed t o anyevi dence thathe i n fac tm etanyl i s t i ng, m uch l es s i dent i fyw hi ch l i s t i ng he mayhave met . A tal l event s , C l ai borne cl ear l ydoes n o t m e e t any o f

th e re le v a n t lis tin g s , e s s e n tia lly m o o tin g th e is s u e . Second, C l ai bor ne cha l l enges the A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on as t o w hatl i ghtw or k j obs h e c o u ld p e rf

o rm , co n ten d in g th a t itw a s im p e rm iss ib lyv a g u e a n d th a t th e A L J “ lit e ra lly i nvent ed a pa s tj ob fort he cl ai m ant . ” W e ar e unper s uaded, agr eei ng w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C o u rtthat the A L J’s find ing s w ere su ff ici en t, an d su p p o rt ed b ythe re co rd. M o re sp e c if ica lly , in c o n c lu d in g th a t C laib o rn e c o u ld p e rf o rm lig h t w o rk , the A L J p ro p e rly reli ed u p o n C lai b o rne ’s ow n test im o n yan d the o p inion s o f D r. A rth u r M il lm an , D r. P ea rl K or enbl i t , t he s t at e age ncyphy s i ci ans , and D r . D onal d Pey s er . C l ai borne r emonstr at es at t he A L J ’ s cr edi t i ng of thes e medi cal w i t nes s es and the r ej ect i on of other s , butthatw as w ith in h is p u rv iew , an d h is d e c isio n s in th is a re a w e re re a so n e d . C laib o rn e a lso a ss e rts 1C l ai bor ne al s o had an ul cerand att i m es m ayhave s uffe r ed fr om depr es s i on, but 2 n e i t h e rc o n d i t i o n w a s d e v e l o p e d a s a p o s s i b l e c a u s e o f d i s a b i l i t y. 4 th a t th e A L J d id n o t re c ite a ll th e p ro b a tiv e e v id e n c e w h ich su p p o rts o r re jec ts h is fi ndi ngs . O urcas es do notr equi r e an A L J t o do s o; w e do notgr ade A L J opi ni ons ; r ather w e l oo k to see i f t heyare s up po rt ed b ysubst anti al evidence. T his on e i s. W e do notgai ns ayt hatC l ai bor ne w as aff l i ct ed w i t h car di ovas cul arand or t hopaedi c pr obl ems. H ow ever , t he medi cal evi dence r el i ed on bythe A L J w as su f f icie n t to su p p o rt th e A L J’s c o n c lu sio n th a t C laib o rn e c o u ld p e rf o rm w o rk th a t ex ists i n th e n a t i o n a l e c o n o m y. 2 T he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.