2004 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 4-6-2004 

# Oli va r es 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 ocke t N o . 03-3596

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you 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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 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 no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at 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 va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ol iva r e s v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 866. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/866* The Honorable John R. Gibson, Senior Circuit J udge for the United States Court of

Appeals for t

he Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT No: 03-3596 JUAN OL IVARES, Appellant
v. COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

______________________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Will iam G. Bassle r

(D.C. No. 02-cv- 00486)

_______________________ Su bm itted pur sua nt to Th ird C ircu it LA R 3 4.1

March 23, 2004 Bef or e: FUENT ES, SMIT H an d GI BSON, * Circuit Judges (Fil ed: April6, 2004 )

_____________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

____________ SM ITH , Circuit

Judge. Juan Olivares appeal s from a judgment of the Dist

rict Court affi rming the2

C om m iss io ne r o f S oc ial Se cu rity’ s f in al d ec isi on de nyi ng hi s a pp lic ati on fo r d isa bi lity and supplement al security income benefi ts under

the Socia l Securi ty Act. The Dist rict Court had jurisdi ction unde r 42 U.S.C. § 405( g). We exerci se appell ate j urisdi ction unde r 28 U .S.C. § 129 1. O ur rev iew “ is identic al to tha t of the Distric t Cou rt, nam ely to determi ne whether there is substant ial e vidence t o support t he Commissioner’ s decis ion.” Plummer v. Apfel , 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999). Subst antia l evide nce is “more than a mere sci ntil la. It means s uch rele vant evi dence as a r easonable mind might acc ept as adequate t o support a

conclusi on.” Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (inte rna l qu otati on m ark s an d cita tion om itted ). In determining whether a clai mant is di sabled, the Commissione r must fol low the famili ar five step se quentia l anal ysi s set f orth i n the regul ations promulgate d by the Social Sec urity A dm inistr ation
. See 20 C .F.R
. § § 404.1520, 416. 920. Olivares cont ends that the Ad minis trative L aw Judg e (“A LJ”) erred a t the third and f ifth step of this analysis. W ith respect to st ep three , Olivares ar gues that the ALJ fail ed to adequatelyexplai n why Olivares ’s medicalconditi on did not s atis fy any of the i mpairments lis ted in Appendi x 1 to the Soci al Securi ty regulat ions, thereby

establ ishi ng that he was disabl ed per se . See 20 C .F.R
. § 404.1520(d) . Olivares al so takes issue wit h the ALJ’s det ermination at s tep five that Olivares had the resi dual functional c apacity t o perform the full r ange of sedentary work. This dete rminati on, accor ding to Oli vares, is not supporte d by subs tantial ev idenc e, bec ause the A LJ f ailed to prop erly cons ider the judg men t of his3

me dica l exp ert, D r. M ylod, a n or tho ped ic su rge on. Oliv ares’s a rgum ent w ith resp ect to ste p three of the sequ ential an alysis is frivol ous. Dr. Mylod, pl ainti ff’s own medicalexpert, testifie d before the ALJ that Olivares ’s medicalconditi on did not meet or equal t

he lis ting for

eithe r spina l dis orders or severalother muscul oskelet al maladi es. Thi s aspect of Dr. Mylod’ s test

imony was specifi call y ci ted bythe ALJ. Accordi ngly , the re is substant ial e vidence t o support t he AL J’s d eterm inati on a t step thre e tha t Ol ivar es d id n ot h ave a liste d im pair me nt. As to Olivar es’s contention t hat the ALJ failed t o accord suffi cient weight to t

he opin ion o f D r. M ylod, we find it u nper suasiv e. Dr. M ylod, as the AL J note d in h is decisi on, te sti fied at

the June 1999 hearing r egarding Oli vares’ s resi dual functional cap acity, e xpl ainin g th at O livar es h ad in itially inju red his b ack in th e latte r pa rt of 199 7. Dia gno stic studi es re ve al ed a h er ni at ed lu mbar d is c a nd O li va re s wa s t re at ed on two
occa sions w ith an e pidu ral injectio n con taining a stero id. As a con sequ ence of the steroid
me dica tion , Oli var es d eve lop ed a rare pul mo nar y fun gal in fec tion calle d as per gillo sis. Although treatment during the f irst few months of 1998 with the medicati on Amphoterici n B was successful , Olivares devel oped joint pains. Dr. Mylod acknowledged that

Olivares ’s phy sici ans “were puzzl ed as to why he had persi stent joint pains” once the cours e of Amphoterici n was completed. Subsequent di agnosti c testing did not reveal anyspecifi c medical c onditi on causing t he joint pain. Indeed, a

bone scan conducted i n July1998 was unremarkable
.4

After revi ewing Olivare s’s medic al st atus, Dr. Mylod opi ned that Olivares was limited to stand ing fo r “ma ybe two out o f eigh t hou rs” an d no mo re than twen ty to thirty minu tes at a tim e. W alking wa s also lim ited, bec ause of k nee a nd h ip pain , to one to one-and-a- half bl ocks. Si tti ng was restricte d, in Dr. Mylod’s opi nion, to no more than four hours i n an eight

hour day and no more than t hirty minutes at a t

ime. A five pound weight li mit was warranted for li fting and carry ing. The A LJ acco rded little weight to D r. Mylod’s restrictive assessm ent of O livares’s residu al fun ctiona l capa city. He n oted th at Dr . Mylod wa s freq uently use d by claim ants in dis abili ty cases and was bei ng paid to testi fy i n that proceeding, thereby creating an inh ere nt b ia s. Becau se Dr . My lodhad n ei the r treate d nor exami ned Ol ivares , the ALJ explai ned that

the weight

to be accor ded Dr. Mylod’ s opini on was dependent on the amount of supporting evide nce in the record. In the ALJ’s vi ew, the re cord did not support Dr. Mylod’s opi nion which was “based to a signi ficant degree on the ongoing subjective complai nts of j oint pai n.” We find no error

by the ALJ in discounting Dr. Myl od’s opini on. It was based predom inantly on Olivares’s su bjective com plaints of persistent joint pain. T he record fa il s t o de mon st

ra te th at Oli va re s’ s p ai n l im ited hi m as se ve re ly as Dr. Myl od o pi ne d. As the ALJ noted, Dr. Licht broun, Oli vares’ s tre ating phy sici an, documente d in August 1998 that de spit e joint

pains, Olivares had full range of moti on and was capable of compre ssing twentypounds. Notabl y, the repor ts of se veral c onsult ative physi cians who examined1 As s upp ort for his co ntentio n that th e A LJ er red, O livares s ubm its that he subs eque ntly

applie d for dis abili ty benefit s and was found to be di sabled. We made explicit in Jones v. Sulli van , 95 4 F. 2d 125 , 12 8 (3 d Cir . 19 91) , that evi denc e whi ch was notbefo re t he ALJ “cannot be us ed to argue the ALJ’s deci sion was not s upported bysubstant ial e vidence. ” Accordingly , the fact that Olivares subs equentl y r eceived di sabil ity benefit s is of no consequence t o our analy sis of whether the ALJ erred in the case sub judi ce . See also Matthews v. Apf

el , 239 F.3 d 58 9, 59 4-9 5 (3 d C ir. 20 01)
. 5 Oliv ares in Au gust, S eptem ber an d D ecem ber o f 19 98 d ocum ented com plaints o f on ly back pain. In the abs ence of medicalevidence t o support Oli vares’ s contention that he continue d to suffer

from debil itat

ing joi nt pains in the l atte r part of 1998, it

was not improper for

the ALJ to dis count Dr. Myl od’s subse quent opini on that Oli vares’ s phys ical cap abili ties w ere s eve rely res tricte d. Olivares asse rts that the AL J rejected D r. Mylod’s opinio n simply becau se Dr. Mylod was a paid medi cal expert. Yet that a ssertion si mply i gnores the medical e vidence of record. Although the ALJ’s observations that Dr. Myl od was frequentl y use d by clai mants and that he was being paid to testi fy i n this proceedi ng may have been a n inartfu l way of expla ining o ne of the ba ses fo r disco unting Dr. M ylod’s op inion, th ey did provide an appropri ate basi s for cl assif yi ng Dr. Mylod’ s opini on as thatof a “nonexa min ing sou rce” und er 2 0 C .F.R
. § 404 .152 7. In sum, w e conclud e that there w as substantial evide nce to sup port the A LJ’s decisi on that Oli vares was not disabl ed. 1 We will affi rm the judgment of the Dist

rict Co urt.

______________________________________6