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 7-14-2005 

# T orres 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 . 04-3542

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 authori 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 " T orr e s v . C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 845. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/845NOT 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. 04- 3542 O RL A N D O TO RR ES,

A ppel l ant v. J O A NN E B. BA RN HA RT, S OC I AL S E CU RI T Y ADMI NI S T RA T I ON 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 05798) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . L o w ell A . R ee d , Jr. Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 3, 2005 B E FO R E : FU E N T E S, G R E E N B E R G and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J ul y14, 2005) OP I NI ON C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udge. O r l ando Torr es ( “C l ai m ant ”) appea l s fr om an or derof the D i s tr i ctC our taff i r m i ng a d e c isio n b yth e C o m m iss io n e r o f S o c ial S e c u rity(“ C o m m iss io n e r” ) d e n y in g h is appl i cat i on forSuppl ement al Secur i tyI ncome ( “SSI ”) underT i t l e X V I of the Soci al2

Secur i tyA ct , 42 U . S. C . §§ 1381- 1383f. C l ai m antal l eged thathe had be en di s abl ed s i nce J anuary8, 2002 beca us e of a r thr i t i s , anxi ety , depr es s i on, s l eepi ng di ffi cul t i es , hear i ng voi ces , and hi gh bl ood pr es s ur e. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291, and for the fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w i l l aff i r m . B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe part i es , w e onl ys et for th the r el evantfac t s i n connec t i on w i th ourdi s cus s i on. I. C l ai m antcont ends thatthe A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) comm i t t ed s ever al err or s i n adj udi cat i ng hi s cas e, i ncl udi ng: ( 1) deny i ng hi s r eques tt o s ubpoena hi s tr eat i ng ps y chi atr i s t , D r . R ogerE r r o, t o r es pond t o i nt err ogat or i es ; ( 2) fai l i ng t o enabl e the cons ul t at i ve ment al exami ner , D r . L or en Lavi ol ett e, t o r evi ew the ent i r etyof the evi dent i aryfi l e; ( 3) r el y i ng on a non- exami ni ng s t at e age ncychec k- l i s tform as s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n eval uat i ng the s ever i tyof hi s m ent al condi t i on; and ( 4) r el y i ng on the r eport s of the cons ul t at i ve phy s i cal exami ner , D r . H or aci o B us chi azz o, w ho w as not furni s hed w i th avai l abl e t es tr es ul t s des pi t e i ndi cat i ng thats uch r es ul t s w oul d have be en hel pful i n hi s di agnos i s . W e addr es s eac h of thes e cont ent i ons i n turn. II. O urs t andar d of r evi ew i n t hi s cas e i s w hetherther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence i n t he re c o rd to s u p p o rt th e C o m m is s io n e r’ s d e c is io n . See Brown v. B ow en , 845 F. 2d 1211, 1 2 1 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ).C l ai m antr eques t ed thatthe A L J s ubpoena D r . E rr o t o have hi m compl et e an 1 as s es s m entform . A ccor di ng t o C l ai m ant , D r . E rr o had i ns t i tut ed a pr act i ce w i thi n the preceding y ear of no l on ger com plet i ng such f orm s for anyof h i s pat i ents . 3 III . Fi r s t , C l ai m antas s ert s thatthe A L J fl out ed herdutyt o devel op the r ecor d by r efus i ng hi s r eques tt o s ubpoena D r . E rr o t o cl ar i fyappar enti ncons i s t enci es thats he pu rport edlyackn ow l edg ed w ere contai ned w i thin hi s psy cho therapytreatm ent not es. 1 C lai m an t, h o w ev er, m isr ep rese n ts th e A L J’s p o sit ion . T h e A L J d id n o t exp ress c o n ce rn w ith a m b ig u iti e s in th e p sy c h o th e ra p ytre a tm e n t n o tes o r in d ica te a n e e d o r d e sire to fur thers uppl ementthe r ecor d. R ather , the A L J per cei ved numer ous i ncons i s t enci es betw een the document aryr ecor d and C lai m ant ’s t es t i m ony atthe admi ni s tr at i ve hea r i ng, a n d so u g h t to a d d re ss h e r c re d ib ili tyc o n c e rn s th ro u g h q u e stio n in g C laim a n t. C o n tra ryto C laim a n t’s c h a rg e , the A L J’s re m a rk s w e re n o t il lu stra tiv e o f c o n f u sio n a b o u t th e sta te and deve l opm entof the r ecor d. I ndeed, the A L J expr es s ed s ever al t i m es herconfi dence w i th the ac cur acy , cl ar i ty , and compl et enes s of the r ecor d befor e her . C l ai m antcannot s addl e the A L J w i th hi s ow n per s pect i ve r egar di ng the i nt ernal cohes i venes s of the tr eatm entnot es and then ac cus e herof fa i l i ng t o devel op the r ecor d bydecl i ni ng t o i s s ue a s u b p o e n a . See 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 1 6 .1 4 5 0 (d ) (“ W h e n it i s re a so n a b lyn e c e ss a ryf o r th e f u ll pr es ent at i on of a c as e, an admi ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge . . . m ay. . . i s s ue s ubpoenas forthe ap p ea ran ce an d test im o n yo f w itn esse s an d fo r th e p rod u cti o n o f . . . d o cu m en ts th at are m at er i al t o an i s s ue atthe hea r i ng. ”) . T he A L J corr ect l ydet erm i ned thata s ubpoena w as4

notnece s s aryforful l pr es ent at i on of C l ai m ant ’ s cas e, and ac cor di ngl ydi d notabus e her di s cr et i on i n notgr ant i ng C l ai m ant ’ s r eques tt o s ubpoena D r . E rr o t o compl et e an a s s e s s m e n t f

o rm . R e late d to th is a rg u m e n t is C laim a n t’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e A L J in a p p ro p ria tely eval uat ed the ment al tr eat i ng s our ces byempl oy i ng her“l ay ” i nt erpr et at i on of the ps y chother apytr eatm entnot es . T hi s as s ert i on l acks m er i t . T he A L J r evi ew ed and a n a ly z e d th e tre a tm e n t n o tes o f D r. E rro a n d th e ra p ist R a f a e l S o sa a s a w h o le, a n d in c o m b i n a t i o n w i th o th e re v i d e n c e o f r e c o r d i n c l u d i n g C l a i m a n t ’ s o w n t e s t i m o n y, det erm i ned thattheys how ed r emar kabl e i m pr ovementi n C l ai m ant ’ s ps y chi atr i c condi t i on and thathi s condi t i on w as notdi s abl i ng. T hes e conc l us i ons ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . I tcannotbe di s put ed thatD r . E rr o’ s and M r . Sosa ’ s r es pect i ve exa m i nat i ons and tr eatm entnot es documenta mar ked and dr amat i c i m pr ovementi n C l ai m ant ’ s m ent al s t atus . C l ai m ant , how ever , acc us es the A L J of i gnor i ng tr eatm entnot es w hi ch c o n tra d icte d h e r o b se rv a tio n o f im p ro v e m e n t. A lth o u g h v a rio u s tre a tm e n t n o tes in d ica te thatC l ai m anthas notful l yr ecove r ed, thes e r el at i vel ys por adi c s etbacks do notunder cut th e s ig n if

ic a n c e o f C la im a n t’ s s u b s ta n tia l im p ro v e m e n t f ro m p s y c h o th e ra p ytr e a tm e n t. C ontr aryt o C l ai m ant ’ s char act er i zat i on, the A L J di d noti m pr oper l yi gnor e tr eatm ent not es w hi ch contr adi ct ed heropi ni on, butr atheras s es s ed thos e not es as a w hol e t o r eac h h e r c o n c lu s io n o f

s u b s ta n tia l im p ro v e m e n t. S e e C o tterv . H a rr is , 642 F. 2d 700, 705 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) (“W e a re a lso c o g n izan t th at w h en the m ed ical t esti m o n yo r co n clus ion s areG A F m eas ur es the ps y chol ogi cal , s oci al , and occ upat i onal funct i oni ng l evel s of an 2 in d iv id u a l. See A m er i can Ps y chi atr i c A s s ’ n, D i agnos t i c and St at i s t i cal M anual of M ent al D is o rd e rs 3 2 (4 th e d . 1 9 9 4 ). I n d e t a i l i n g h i s r a t i o n a l e f o ra c c o r d i n g l e s s wei g h tt o th e GA F e s t i ma t e s , th e ALJ 3 m is s ta te d th e in itia l G A F a s s e s s m e n t a s “ 4 0 ,” ra th e r t h a n 4 9 . A G A F sc or e fa l l i ng betw een 41 a nd 50 i ndi cat es “‘ s er i ous s ym pt om s ( e. g. , s ui ci dal 4 id e a tio n , se v e re o b se ss io n a l ritua ls, f re q u e n t sh o p liftin g ) O R a n yse rio u s im p a irm e n t in s oci al , occupa t i onal , ors chool funct i oni ng ( e. g. , no fr i ends , unabl e t o keep a j ob) . ’ ” B oyd v. Apf el , 239 F. 3d 698, 702 ( 5th C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng A m er i can Ps y chi atr i c A s s ’ n, D iagn o sti c a n d S tat ist ical M an u al of M en tal D isord ers 3 2 (4th ed . 1 9 9 4 )). 5 c o n f l i c t i n g , th e A L J i s n o to n l y e n t i t l e d b u tr e q u i r e d t o c h o o s e b e tw e e n th e m . ” ) . N o t a b l y, th e e n tries re lied u p o n b yC laim a n t to d e m o n stra te th e lim it o f h is p ro g re ss m o stlyd e tail C l ai m ant ’ s s el f- r eport ed s ym pt om s , as oppos ed t o the doct or ’ s and ther api s t ’ s num er ous a ss e ss m e n ts o f

c o n tin u a l im p ro v e m e n t. L i kew i s e, C l ai m antchal l enges the A L J ’ s di s m i s s al of the G l obal A s s es s m entof F u n c tio n in g S c a le ( “ G A F ” ) e stim a tes o f th e tre a tin g p sy c h o lo g ica l so u rc e s, a g a in 2 a c c u s in g th e A L J o f

a p p lyin g h e r o w n “ la y ” re in te rp re ta tio n o f th e p s y c h o th e ra p yre c o rd s . T he A L J di s cr edi t ed the G A F as s es s m ent s , one as pectof D r . E rr o’ s opi ni on, as “not cons i s t entw i th ors uppor t ed bythe s ym pt om s r eport ed i n the s es s i on not es . ” ( A pp. at 31. ) T he A L J poi nt ed outthatthe i ni t i al G A F of 49 w as as s es s ed atthe t i m e of C l ai m ant ’ s fi r s teval uat i on i n N ovember2001, befor e anytr eatm entw as admi ni s t er ed. 3 O ne mont h l at er , C l ai m antw as as s es s ed a G A F of 40, and fi nal l y , i n February2002, w as agai n as s es s ed w i th a G A F of 49. Si nce thatt i m e, how ever , the A L J obs erved: 4 T he not es s how a dr amat i c and pos i t i ve r es pons e t o tr eatm ent . A l though6

the cl ai m anthad more s ym pt om at ol ogyatthe i ni t i al ps y chol ogi cal e v a lu a tio n o n D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 , h e th e n w a s ta k in g p sy c h o tro p ic m edi cat i on and gett i ng couns el i ng thats how ed i ncr eas ed l evel s of s oci al f u n c tio n in g a n d a d e c re a se in p sy c h o tic s ym p to m s w ith in a y e a r o f h is al l eged on setdate. F or exam ple, [l i st i ng nu m erous exam ples ] . . . . In l ess than one y earof m ent al heal th tr eatm ent , the onl yr emai ni ng s i gni fi cant m ent al l i m i t at i on appea r s t o be i n the ar ea of conce ntr at i on and att ent i on. (Id . at34. ) I n l i ghtof the l att ertr eatm entnot es , w hi ch undeni abl ys etfor th a cons i s t ent p a t t e rn o f

s u b s t a n t i a l i mpr o v e me n t , i n c l u d i n g i n th e a r e a o f s o c i a l f u n c t i o n i n g , th e ALJ j us t i fi abl yacc or ded l es s w ei ghtt o D r . E rr o’ s and M r . Sosa ’ s G A F as s es s m ent s as an i nacc ur at e i ndi cat orof the p re se n t s ever i tyof C l ai m ant ’ s m ent al i m pai r m ent s . I n l i ghtof th e o b je c tiv e d o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e , th is w a s p ro p e r. See W i l l i am s v. Sul l i van , 970 F. 2d 1178, 1187 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( not i ng C om m i s s i oner ’ s obl i gat i on t o w ei gh m edi cal evi dence and choos e betw een c onfl i ct i ng acc ount s ) . U nl i ke i n Mor al es v. Apf el , 225 F. 3d 310 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , upon w hi ch C l ai m antr el i es , the A L J her e di d noti nappr opr i at el yr ej ectthe tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on on the bas i s of cr edi bi l i tyj udgm ent s , s pecul at i on, orl ay opi ni on. I ns t ead, the A L J ’ s fi ndi ng w as bas ed on the obj ect i ve medi cal evi dence co n tai n ed in the p sy ch o thera p ytr ea tm en t no tes, an d is no t “ov erw h elm ed ” b yco n tr ary e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd . See i d. a t 3 2 0 . T urni ng t o C l ai m ant ’ s s econd a l l eged poi ntof err or , al though the A L J di d not gr antC l ai m ant ’ s r eques tt o s ubpoena D r . E rr o, s he di d gr antthe al t ernat i ve r eques tof s endi ng C l ai m antfora pos t - hear i ng ps y chol ogi cal cons ul t at i ve exa m i nat i on. C l ai m ant as s ert s thatD r . L avi ol ett e had notbeen f urni s hed w i th the ent i r etyof hi s m ent al tr eatm ent7

r ecor ds t o r evi ew i n connec t i on w i th the exa m i nat i on, as he had r eques t ed atthe admi ni s tr at i ve hea r i ng. I n addi t i on, the A L J di d notr es pond t o C l ai m ant ’ s obj ect i on, m a d e a f ter th e c o n su ltativ e e x a m in a tio n , tha t D r. L a v io lette h a d n o t b e e n p ro v id e d w ith the tr eatm entr ecor ds . C l ai m ant , how ever , ci t es no author i tyi n s uppor tof hi s cont ent i on thatthe A L J w as obl i gat ed t o s end thos e tr eatm entr ecor ds . I m por t ant l y , cons i der i ng i s s ues of funda m ent al fai r nes s , ther e i s no evi dence thatD r . L avi ol ett e coul d notr ender an ac cur at e as s es s m entw i thoutthe addi t i onal m at er i al s , and i ti s noteven c l earfr om t he r ecor d thatC l ai m ant ’ s document aryfi l e w as nots uppl i ed t o D r . L avi ol ett e, al though t he d o c to r d id n o t re f

e re n c e it i n h is re p o rt. F in a lly , itis n o ted th a t th e A L J o rd e re d th e p o sth ea ri n g co n su lt ati v e p sy ch iatri c e x am ination to sa ti sfyC lai m an t’ s - no t th e A L J’s - de sir e forfur therevi dence and cl ar i fi cat i on of the r ecor d. A s di s cus s ed above , the A L J di d not b e liev e th a t th e re c o rd re q u ire d f u rth e r su p p lem e n tatio n . N o r d id sh e in d ica te th a t a co n su lt ati v e e x am ination w as n ec essa ryto reso lve c o n fli cts i n the re co rd e v iden ce . In sh o rt, an yf

a ilu re o f th e A L J to su p p lyD r. L a v io lette w ith C laim a n t’s d o c u m e n tar yf ile d o es n o t con sti tute rev ersible leg al error. T h ird , C laim a n t ch a llen g e s th e A L J’s re lian c e u p o n th e n o n -e x a m in in g sta te agenc yps y chol ogi s t ’ s M ay17, 2002 as s es s m entt o s uppor therconcl us i ons r egar di ng C lai m an t’ s m en tal im p airm en ts an d m en tal R esid u al F u n cti o n ing C ap ac ity(“R F C ”), cont endi ng thatthe as s es s m entdoes notcons t i tut e s ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he s t at e age ncy c o n s u lta n t f

o u n d th a t C la im a n t’ s s c h iz o a f f e c tiv e d is o rd e r c a u s e d “ m ild lim ita tio n s in . . .8

d a ilyliv in g ; m ild lim itatio n s in h is s o c ial f u n c tio n in g ; m o d e ra te lim itatio n s in h is conce ntr at i on, per s i s t ence , orpace ; and no epi s odes of dec om pens at i on. ” ( A pp. at31, 2 4 8 . ) T h ese li m it ati o n s w ere u lt im atelyad o p ted b ythe A L J in f ash ion ing C lai m an t’ s R FC . I ni t i al l y , C l ai m antar gues thatthe cons ul t ant ’ s as s es s m ents houl d notbe ac cor ded s ubs t ant i al w ei ghtbeca us e C l ai m ants ubm i t t ed addi t i onal tr eatm entr ecor ds fol l ow i ng th a t as se ss m e n t. T h e su b se q u e n t re c o rd s, h o w e v e r, w e re tak e n in to a c c o u n t b yth e A L J in co n jun cti o n w ith the c o n su lt an t’ s ass essm en t, an d sign ifi ca n tl y , theyb o lst er the A L J’s fin d ing s reg ard ing the e x tent an d ram ifi ca ti o n s o f C lai m an t’ s m en tal im p airm en ts. In contr as t , the s t at e age ncyr eport s err oneous l yr el i ed upon bythe A L J i n Mor al es v. Apf el w er e pr epar ed w i thoutthe bene fi tof s ubs equentexami nat i ons and a tr eat i ng phy s i ci an as s es s m entw hi ch al l di r ect l yunderm i ned the conc l us i ons dr aw n bythe s t at e age ncy d o c to rs . See 225 F. 3d at320. C l ai m antaddi t i onal l yar gues thatthe A L J i gnor ed the cons ul t ant ’ s s econd c heck- l i s teval uat i on, al s o pr epar ed on M ay17, 2002. T hi s s econd as s es s m entfound C l ai m antm oder at el yl i m i t ed i n s ever al ar eas fal l i ng underthe rubr i c of “s us t ai ned conc entr at i on and per s i s t ence , ” i ncl udi ng the abi l i tyt o carryoutdet ai l ed instruction s, m aintain a tt en ti o n an d co n ce n tr ati o n fo r ex tend ed p eriod s, an d p erf o rm a c tiv iti e s w ith in a sc h e d u le, m a in tain re g u lar a tten d a n c e , an d b e p u n c tu a l w ith in c u s to m a ry to le ra n c e s . ( See A p p . at 2 5 2 .) T h e c o n su ltan t o p in e d th a t C laim a n t “is ca p ab le of

p erf o rm ing ad eq u ate . . . self c are w ith p h y sical pro b lem s b eing the p ri m ary lim iti n g f

a c to r. H e c a n g e t alo n g w ith p e o p le a n d c o m m u n ica te c lea rly . S e lf9

pr eocc upat i on can a ffe ctconce ntr at i on. H e ca n fol l ow i ns truct i ons and i s capa bl e of per form i ng s i m pl e, r out i ne t as ks . ” (Id . at 2 5 4 .) A lth o u g h th e A L J d id n o t re f e re n c e th is s econd r eporti n herdeci s i on, i tcl ear l yr ei nfor ces the conc l us i ons r eac hed i n the c o n su ltan t’s f

irst re p o rt. D e sp ite h is f in d in g s re g a rd in g C laim a n t’s lim ited a b ili ties in m ai nt ai ni ng conce ntr at i on and per s i s t ence , the cons ul t antnonethel es s det erm i ned C laim a n t ca p a b le o f

f o llo w in g sim p le in stru c tio n s a n d p e rf o rm in g ro u tin e tas k s. T h is is enti rel ycon si st ent w i th the A L J’ s observat i on , based o n h er r eview of the treatm ent not es, that“the onl yr emai ni ng s i gni fi cantm ent al l i m i t at i on appea r s t o be i n the ar ea of conce ntr at i on and att ent i on. ” (Id . at 3 4 .) F u rth e rm o re , as n o ted b yth e A L J, th is det erm i nat i on comport s w i th D r . L avi ol ett e’ s fi ndi ng thatC l ai m ant ’ s abi l i tyt o fol l ow s i m pl e i ns truct i ons w as l i m i t ed, butnotpr ecl uded. T he A L J acc or di ngl yr es tr i ct ed C l ai m antt o w or k i nvol vi ng no m or e than s i m pl e i ns truct i ons . I n r eac hi ng herfi ndi ng thatC l ai m ant ’ s m ent al i m pai r m ent s w er e notdi s abl i ng, the A L J cons i der ed the r ecor d as a w hol e. T he ment al i m pai r m entand ment al R FC anal y s es ar e fr ee of r ever s i bl e l egal err orand ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . L as t , C l ai m antcont ends thatthe A L J ’ s phy s i cal R FC fi ndi ngs ar e nots uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he A L J cal cul at ed thatC l ai m antr et ai ns the fol l ow i ng phy s i cal RF C: [L]i ghtexert i on, notr equi r i ng l i ft i ng w i th hi s r i ghtupperextr emi tyabove hi s s houl der ; thatw oul d al l ow hi m t o us e a c ane f ors t andi ng and w al ki ng; notr equi r i ng us e of hi s r i ghtfootforr epet i t i ve ac t i ons s uch as oper at i ng footcontr ol s ; r equi r i ng no m or e than occ as i onal pos tur al act i vi t i es ; w i th no10

conce ntr at ed orexce s s i ve expos ur e t o extr eme col d, dampness , or v ib ra tio n s . . . . (Id . at 34 . ) T h e A L J b ase d h er p h y sical R F C an aly sis on the e v alua ti o n s o f D r. B us chi azz o. She r ej ect ed, how ever , hi s concl us i on that“cl ai m anti s l i m i t ed t o s t andi ng and w al ki ng onl yone hour , ” ( i d. ) , as bei ng uns uppor t ed bythe obj ect i ve medi cal evi dence and bec aus e C l ai m ant ’ s t es t i m onyon thatm att erw as embel l i s hed and u n c o n v in c in g . C l ai m anti ni t i al l ypoi nt s outthatD r . B us chi azz o w as nots uppl i ed w i th pert i nent m e d ica l re c o rd s. In h is in iti a l ex a m in a tio n , D r. B u sc h iaz z o d iag n o se d “ [ c ]h ro n ic lu m b a lg ia w ith p o ss ib le r ig h t lo w e r e x tre m ityra d icu lo p a th y , p o ss ib lyse c o n d a ryto degene r at i ve j oi ntdi s eas e. C orr el at i on w i th x- r ay s t aken a tT empl e U ni ver s i tyH os pi t al dur i ng the curr enty earw oul d be hel pful . ” (Id . at215. ) H e not ed i n hi s fol l ow - up exami nat i on thatC l ai m anthad under gone “x- r ay s atT empl e U ni ver s i tyof hi s head, but does notknow the r es ul t s . E xami nat i on of the hea d i s otherw i s e norm al . ” (Id . at 22 6 . ) Si gni fi cant l y , how ever , D r . B us chi azz o nevers peci fi cal l yr eques t ed s uch r ecor ds , never or der ed addi t i onal t es t i ng des pi t e or der i ng addi t i onal pul m onaryt es t i ng, and di d not o th e rw ise sta te o r im p lyth a t th e a b se n c e o f su c h re c o rd s u n d e rm in e d th e a c c u ra c yo f h is di agnos es . C l ai m ant ’ s as s ert i on thatthe fa i l ur e t o ens ur e D r . B us chi azz o acc es s t o the n e c e ss a rytre a tm e n t d o c u m e n ts n e c e ss a rilyre su lted in a c o m p ro m ise d d iag n o sis is s im p ly nots uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. C l ai m ant ’ s r el i ance on 20 C . F. R . § 416. 912( f) , w hi ch s t at es that“[g] ener al l y , w e w i l l notr eques ta cons ul t at i ve exa m i nat i on unt i l w e have m ade11

e v e ryre a so n a b le e f

f o rt to o b tain e v id e n c e f ro m y o u r o w n m e d ica l so u rc e s,” to su p p o rt h is arg u m en t i s m isplace d . T h e v ariou s testi n g an d d o cu m en ts th at C lai m an t high li g h ts w ere notpr ovi ded t o D r . B us chi azz o w er e ava i l abl e t o and w er e expr es s l ycons i der ed bythe A L J , w ho i n fac tfound thatC l ai m ants uffe r ed fr om degene r at i ve di s c di s eas e of the l um bars pi ne. T h e A L J’s re

jec tio n o f

D r. B u sc h iaz z o ’s s tan d in g a n d w a lk in g lim itatio n s is so u n d lyb ase d o n su b stan ti al ev iden ce . C lai m an t’ s b ac k p ain, w h ich h e re p rese n ted to D r. B us chi azz o as i nt erm i t t entand w hi ch r adi at ed t o hi s r i ghtl ow erextr emi ty , w as cons ervat i vel ytr eat ed w i th A napr ox. C l ai m antexpl i ci t l ys t at ed i n hi s SSI a ppl i cat i on thatthe medi cat i on pr ovi ded s om e pai n r el i ef. Fur therm or e, D r . B us chi azz o found that a ll ran g e s o f

m o tio n w e re w ith in n o rm a l li m its, ex c e p t f o r o n lym ild lim itatio n s in th e h ip a n d sh o u ld e r. T h e A L J a d d iti o n a llyn o ted h e r c o n c e rn th a t C laim a n t d id n o t p u t f o rth f u ll ef fo rtd u ri n g h is va ri o u s ex am ination s, as c o n firm ed b yD r. B u sch iazz o an d D r. L avi ol ett e, and thathe exa gger at ed hi s s ym pt om at ol ogyatthe admi ni s tr at i ve hea r i ng, as c o n f ir m e d b yim p e a c h m e n t w ith th e p s y c h o th e ra p yn o te s . See Sul l i van , 970 F. 2d at1187 ( not i ng C om m i s s i oner ’ s obl i gat i on t o w ei gh m edi cal evi dence and choos e betw een confl i ct i ng acc ount s ) . I n anyevent , the A L J ’ s di s m i s s al of D r . B us chi azz o’ s s t andi ng and w al ki ng l i m i t at i ons di d notpr ej udi ce Cl ai m antbeca us e s he det erm i ned thatC l ai m ant coul d per form hi s pas tr el evantw or k as a s t one s ett er , w hi ch i s cl as s i fi ed as uns ki l l ed, se d e n tar yw o rk . T h e V o c a tio n a l E x p e rt c o n f irm e d th a t ev e n if

C laim a n t w a s lim ited to12

sta n d in g a n d w a lk in g n o m o re th a n o n e to tw o h o u rs in a n e ig h t-h o u r d a y , h e c o u ld still p erf o rm h is pa st r elev an t w o rk a s a sto n e se tt er. T he A L J ’ s as s es s m entof C l ai m ant ’ s phy s i cal R FC i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed on J ul y8, 2004, w i l l be af

fi r m ed.