H onor abl e J ohn E . J ones I I I , J udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe * M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 09- 2508

_____________ E L IZ A B E T H V A L E N T I, 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 e a l F ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( 1- 08- cv- 00912) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Pet erG . Sher i dan Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary12, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and J O N E S, D i s tr i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed : A pr i l 2, 2010)

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________2

C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. E l i zabe th V al ent i appea l s fr om a D i s tr i ctC our tor deraff i r m i ng the deni al of D i s abi l i tyI ns ur ance B enef i t s underthe Soci al Secur i tyA ctbythe C om m i s s i onerof S o c i a l S e c u r i ty( th e “ Co mmi s s i o n e r ” ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly su m m arize th e e ssen ti al fa cts. O n D ec em b er 4 , 2 0 0 2 , V alen ti fil ed an ap p li ca ti o n fo r D i s abi l i tyI ns ur ance B enef i t s underthe Soci al Secur i tyA ct , al l egi ng di s abi l i tybegi nni ng A u g u st 9 , 2 0 0 2 d u e to h yp e rte n sio n , a th yro id d iso rd e r, ex h a u stio n , an d a p sy c h iatric i m pai rm ent . T he C om m i s s i onerdeni ed hercl ai m s , both i ni t i al l yand upon rec o n side rati o n . V alen ti req u ested a h ea ri n g b ef o re a n ad m inistrati v e law jud g e (“ A L J”), w hi ch w as hel d on J une 25, 2004. I n a dec i s i on i s s ued A ugus t18, 2004, the A L J found thatV al ent i coul d per form the ful l r ange of “medi um ” w or k, and thus herpas tr el evant w o rk a s a se c re tar y/re c e p tio n ist. O n Ju n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , the D istric t C o u rt (H a y d e n , J.), he ld that the A L J’ s deci si on w as not s up po rt ed b ysubst anti al evidence an d rem and ed the case forfur theradmi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ngs . T he A L J hel d anotherhear i ng on O ct ober5, 2006, l i m i t ed t o t he i s s ues r ai s ed byJ udge H ay den’ s opi ni on. I n a dec i s i on i s s ued O ct ober17, 2006, the A L J found thatV al ent i r et ai ned the re s id u a l f

u n c tio n a l c a p a c ity to p e rf o rm m e d iu m w o rk in v o lv in g s im p le , re p e titiv e ta s k s . B as ed on thi s as s es s m ent , the A L J concl uded thatV al ent i coul d per form herpas tr el evant3

w o rk a s a p a c k e r o f

b a k e d g o o d s in a su p e rm a rk e t, as w e ll as o th e r jo b s th a t ex iste d in sign ifi ca n t nu m b ers in the n ati o n al ec o n o m y . O n M arc h 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rt (S h e rid a n , J.) a f

f irm e d th is d e c isio n a n d d ism iss e d V a len ti’s c a se . V a len ti t im e ly appea l ed. II. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ). W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ' s deci s i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. O ur r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o det erm i ni ng w hethers ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s the A L J ' s fi ndi ng thatV al ent i w as notdi s abl ed. 42 U . S. C . §§ 405( g) , 1383( c) ; R uther for d v. B arnhart , 399 F. 3d 546, 552 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . “‘ Subst ant i al evi dence ’ has been de fi ned as ‘ m or e than a m er e s ci nt i l l a. I tm eans s uch r el evantevi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ’ ” Sm i th v. C al i fano, 637 F. 2d 968, 970 ( 3d C i r . 1981) (qu o ti n g R icha rdso n v . P era les, 4 0 2 U . S . 3 8 9 , 4 0 1 (19 7 1 )). III . T h e S o c ial S e c u rityA c t au th o riz e s th e C o m m iss io n e r to p a yso c ial s e c u rity benef i t s t o di s abl ed per s ons . 42 U . S. C . §§ 423( d) , 1382. D i s abi l i tyi s defi ned as the

“ in a b ili tyto e n g a g e in a n ysu b sta n tial g a in f u l ac tiv ityb yre a so n o f

a n ym e d ica lly det erm i nabl e phy s i cal orm ent al i m pai r m entw hi ch ca n be expe ct ed t o r es ul ti n death or w hi ch has l as t ed orcan be expec t ed t o l as tfora cont i nuous per i od of notl es s than 12 m onths . ” 42 U . S. C . § 423( d) ( 1) ( A ) . A n i ndi vi dual i s notdi s abl ed unl es s her“phy s i cal or4

m ent al i m pai r m entori m pai r m ent s ar e of s uch s ever i tythat[s ] he i s notonl yunabl e t o do hi s pr evi ous w or k butcannot , cons i der i ng [her ] age, educa t i on, and w or k exper i ence , engage i n anyot herki nd of s ubs t ant i al gai nful w or k w hi ch exi s t s i n the nat i onal ec o n o m y . ” 4 2 U . S . C . § 4 2 3 (d)(2 )(A ). T h e C o m m iss io n e r a p p lies a f iv e -ste p tes t to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a c laim a n t is di s abl ed. 20 C . F. R . §§ 404. 1520( a) ( 4) , 416. 920( a) ( 4) . T he fi r s ttw o s t eps r equi r e the c l a i m a n tt o d e m o n s tr a t e th a ts h e i s n o tc u rr e n t l y e n g a g i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l g a i n f u l a c t i v i ty, and thats he i s s uffe r i ng fr om a s ever e i m pai r m ent . I d. I f the cl ai m antpr ogr es s es t o s t ep thr ee, then the ques t i on becomes “‘ w hetherthe i m pai r m enti s equi val entt o one of a num berof Li s t ed I m pai r m ent s [art i cul at ed i n 20 C . F. R . Pt . 404, Subpt . P, A pp. 1] thatt he C om m i s s i oneracknow l edges ar e s o s ever e as t o pr ecl ude s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi ty . ’ ” K nepp v. A pfel , 204 F. 3d 78, 84 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng B ow en v. Y uckert , 482 U . S. 137, 1 4 1 (1 9 8 7 )); se e a lso 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (a )(4 )(iii). If th e c laim a n t' s s p e c if ic i m p a i rm e n ti s n o ta L i s t e d I m p a i r m e n t , th e A L J m u s tc o n s i d e rw h e th e rth e c l a i m a n t 's i m pai rm entorcombi nat i on of i m pai r m ent s i s “medi cal l yequi val ent ” t o a Li s t ed I m pai r m ent . See 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1526( a) . A n i m pai r m entorcombi nat i on of im p a irm e n ts is “ m e d ica llye q u iv a len t” to a L iste d Im p a irm e n t if it is “ a t lea st e q u a l in s ever i tyand dur at i on t o t he cr i t er i a of a ny[L]i s t ed [I ] m pai r m ent . ” I d. I n otherw or ds , t he cl ai m ant ' s i m pai r m ent“ ‘ m us tm eetal l of the s peci fi ed medi cal cr i t er i a. A n i m pai r m ent thatm ani fes t s onl ys om e of thos e cr i t er i a, no m att erhow s ever el y , does notqual i fy . ’ ”5

W i l l i ams v. Sul l i van, 970 F. 2d 1178, 1186 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( quot i ng Sul l i van v. Z ebl ey , 493 U .S . 5 2 1 , 5 3 0 (1 9 9 0 )). A c laim a n t w h o sa tisf ies ste p th re e “ is c o n c lu siv e lyp re su m e d to be di s abl ed. ” K nepp, 204 F. 3d at84 ( ci t at i on and quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . A cl ai m ant w ho fai l s ats t ep thr ee mustcont i nue t o s t eps fourand fi ve. A ts t ep four , the ques t i on i s “w hetherthe cl ai m antr et ai ns the r es i dual funct i onal capa ci tyt o per form herpas tr el evantw or k. ” Pl um m er , 186 F. 3d at428. I ti s the claim an t' s b u rde n to es tablish a n inab il ityto return to h er p ast relev an t w o rk. S ee id. I f the cl ai m ants at i s fi es thi s bur den, then the bur den of pr oduct i on s hi ft s t o the C om m i s s i onert o s how , ats t ep fi ve, that“ther e ar e otherj obs exi s t i ng i n s i gni fi cant num ber s i n t he nat i onal economyw hi ch the cl ai m antcan pe r form , cons i s t entw i th her m edi cal i m pai r m ent s , age, educa t i on, pas tw or k exper i ence , and r es i dual funct i onal capa ci ty . ” Pl um m er , 186 F. 3d at428. T hi s s t ep r equi r es the A L J t o cons i derthe c laim a n t' s re sid u a l f

u n c tio n a l ca p a c ity , ag e , ed u c a tio n , an d p a st w o rk e x p e rie n c e to det erm i ne w hetherthe cumul at i ve ef fec tof al l of the cl ai m ant ' s i m pai r m ent s r ender s her ca p ab le of

w o rkin g . S ee 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 0 (g). V a len ti rais e s tw o iss u e s o n a p p e a l. F irst, sh e a rg u e s th a t sh e w a s d e n ied a f u ll and fa i rhear i ng befor e an i m part i al A L J . Second, V al ent i cont ends thatthe A L J err ed at s t eps fourand fi ve byr el y i ng on a hypothet i cal pos ed t o the voca t i onal expertthatfai l ed t o acc ountadequa t el yforV al ent i ’ s funct i onal l i m i t at i ons . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C our tthatnei therof thes e ar gum ent s i s per s uas i ve.6 A. Val e n t i f i r s ta r g u e s th a th e rDue Pr o c e s s r i g h t s wer e v i o l a t e d b e c a u s e th e ALJ exhi bi t ed bi as agai ns tV al ent i and heratt orney s . A Soci al Secur i tycl ai m anthas the r i ght to a f air he aring b ef

o re a n im p arti al A L J. V en tura v . S h alala, 55 F . 3 d 9 0 0 , 9 0 2 (3d C ir . 1995) . I n V entur a, w e or der ed a ne w hear i ng befor e a di ffe r entA L J beca us e the or i gi nal A L J had enga ged i n coer ci ve, i nt i m i dat i ng, and i rr el evantques t i oni ng of the cl ai m antand had i m pr oper l yi nt er fer ed w i th t he cl ai m ant ’ s att empt t o i ntr oduce e vi dence es t abl i s hi ng d is a b ility. Id . a t 9 0 3 -0 4 . V a le n ti h a s n o t id e n tif ie d a n ys u c h m is c o n d u c t in th is c a s e . C ouns el forV al ent i has s ubm i t t ed exa m pl es fr om othercas es i n w hi ch court s hel d that this A L J erred in h is an aly sis of the e v iden ce p rese n ted in tho se c ase s, b u t th o se c ase s are n o t p re se n tlyb e f

o re th is c o u rt. V a len ti h a s n o t id e n tifie d a n ye v id e n c e f ro m th e re c o rd in th is c a s e in d ic a tin g a n yb ia s o r m is c o n d u c t o n th e p a rt o f th e A L J . B. V alen ti ’s sec o n d arg u m en t i s tha t th e A L J’s q u esti o n ing o f th e v o ca ti o n al ex p ert f a i l e d t o a c c o u n tf

o rh e rf u n c t i o n a l l i mi t a t i o n s . Sp e c i f i c a l l y , s h e a r g u e s th a tth e ALJ fai l ed t o i ncorpor at e phy s i cal l i m i t at i ons m ent i oned byD r . L ew i s Saper s t ei n and pot ent i al p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s tr i c t i o n s n o t e d b ya th e r a p i s ta n d p s y c h i a tr i s ta tT r i n i t a s Ho s p i t a l . An A L J i s notr equi r ed, how ever , “t o s ubm i tt o the voca t i onal experteveryi m pai r m ent al l eged bya cl ai m ai nt . ” R uther for d v. B arnhart , 399 F. 3d 546, 554 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . R ather , “the hypothet i cal s pos ed mustacc ur at el ypor tr aytheV al enti al so chall eng es the A L J’ s r eference t o the m edical -vocat i on al gu i deli nes 1 to su p p o rt th e c o n c lu sio n th a t sh e w a s c a p a b le o f p e rf o rm in g o th e r jo b s th a t ex iste d in s i gni fi cantnum ber s i n t he nat i onal economy . B eca us e the A L J det erm i ned ats t ep four thatV al ent i w as capa bl e of pe r form i ng herpas tr el evantw or k, he di d notneed t o r eac h ste p f iv e in th e se q u e n tial a n a ly sis , an d V a len ti’s a rg u m e n t is n o t re lev a n t. 7 cl ai m ant’ s i m pairm ents and . . . the ex pertm ustbe g i ven an o pp ortun i tyt o ev al uate tho se i m pairm ents as contai ned i n the r ecord. ” Id. (quotat i on m arks om i t t ed). In ot her w ords, “t he A L J m ustaccurat el ycon veyt o the voc at i on al exp ertal l of a c l ai m ant’ s c re d ib ly es tabl is hed l i m i tat i ons . ” Id . (em p h asis in o ri g inal) (cit ati o n o m itted). In th is case , the A L J p o sed a h yp o thetical th at ac cu ratelyref lected V alen ti ’s l i m i t at i ons thathe had de t erm i ned had be en es t abl i s hed bythe medi cal evi dence . T he A L J c o n sid e re d D r. S a p e rste in ’s a ss e ss m e n t an d d e ter m in e d th a t itw a s in c o n sis ten t w ith D r . Saper s t ei n’ s ow n exami nat i on as w el l as the r es tof the medi cal evi dence i n the r ecor d. See A ppendi x ( “A pp. ”) 26. T he A L J al s o cons i der ed the G l obal A s s es s m entof Funct i oni ng r at i ngs fr om T r i ni t as H os pi t al and det erm i ned thattheyw er e i ncons i s t ent w ith th e re s t o f

th e re c o rd e v id e n c e a n d th e a s s e s s m e n t o f a c o n s u lta tiv e p s y c h o lo g is t. I d . T hes e det erm i nat i ons ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , and the A L J ther efor e di d not erri n om i t t i ng thes e al l eged l i m i t at i ons i n the hypothet i cal s pos ed t o the voca t i onal expert . T he A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatV al ent i w as capa bl e of pe r form i ng herpas tr el evant w or k, and w as ther efor e notdi s abl ed forpurpos es of r ece i vi ng D i s abi l i tyI ns ur ance B enef i t s underthe Soci al Secur i tyA ctdur i ng the r el evantt i m e per i od, i s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence . 18 I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.