2006 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 9-15-2006 

# H e rn ande z 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 . 05-4275

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_2006

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 2006 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 " H e rn andez v

. C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 451. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/451NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N O . 05- 4275

KA THLEEN HER NA ND EZ, 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 ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 01926) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. St anl eyR . C hes l er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember14, 2006 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , W E I S, and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed Sept ember15, 2006)

OP I NI ON2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. I nt roduct i on K athl een H ernandez appea l s fr om the dec i s i on of the D i s tr i ctC our taff i r m i ng t he f in a l d e c isio n o f

th e C o m m iss io n e r o f

S o c ial S e c u rityth a t H e rn a n d e z w a s n o t en tit led to d isab il ityinsu ran ce b en ef it s u n d er the S o cial S ec u ri tyA ct. B ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt thor oughl yr evi ew ed the r ecor d, w e w i l l notr epea ti t s anal y s i s i n i t s ent i r ety , choos i ng i nst ead to focu s onlyon the h i gh l i gh t s. I. H ernandez fi l ed an appl i cat i on fordi s abi l i tyi ns ur ance benef i t s on O ct ober19, 1994, al l egi ng di s abi l i tys i nce Sept ember16, 1993 w hen s he s us t ai ned i nj ur i es t o her head, neck, l efts houl derand arm i n a mot orvehi cl e ac ci dent . T he appl i cat i on w as deni ed i ni t i al l yand on r econs i der at i on. Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, the A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge ( “A L J ”) found thatH ernandez w as notdi s abl ed. T her e fol l ow ed a s er i es of pr ocedur al s t eps , i ncl udi ng an appe al , r emand, a s econd he ar i ng befor e an A L J , w ho al s o found that H ern an d ez w as n o t disab led, ad d it ion al pro ce d u res a n d fin all yy et an o ther h ea ri n g b ef o re a new A L J , w ho eval uat ed the evi dence pur s uantt o the fi ve- s t ep s equenc e s etfor th i n 20 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 , an d w h o c o n c lu d e d H e rn a n d e z w a s n o t d isa b led . T h e A p p e a ls C ounci l deni ed H ernandez ’ s r eques tforr evi ew , m aki ng the A L J ’ s M ay30, 2003 deci s i on th e f in a l d e c is io n o f

th e C o m m is s io n e r. H ernandez fi l ed an a ct i on i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof3

N ew J er s eychal l engi ng the C om m i s s i oner ’ s fi nal deci s i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our taff i r m ed a n d H e rn a n d e z a p p e a ls . II. T h is C o u rth as ju ri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e e x erc ise p lena ry r evi ew of l egal i s s ues i n r evi ew i ng an appe al fr om the di s tr i ctcourtaff i r m i ng the C o m m iss io n e r’s d e n ial o f S o c ial S e c u rityb e n e f

its, b u t re v iew f

a c tu a l f in d in g s to det erm i ne w hetherthe admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d pr ovi des s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tt he C o m m issi o n er’s fin d ing s. 4 2 U . S . C . § 4 0 5 (g); S yk es v . A p fe l, 2 2 8 F . 3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T he Soci al Secur i tyA dm i ni s tr at i on has pr om ul gat ed a f i ve- s t ep s equent i al e v a lu a tio n p ro c e s s to d e te rm in e w h e th e r a n in d iv id u a l is d is a b le d . S e e 2 0 C .F .R . § 404. 1520; Pl um m erv A pfel , 186 F. 3d 422, 428 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . T he part i es agr ee that H ernandez s at i s fi es s t ep one be caus e H ernandez di d notengage i n s ubs t ant i al gai nful act i vi tyforthe per i od ati s s ue, Sept ember16, 1993 thr ough J une 30, 1999 w hen H ernandez ’ s di s abi l i tyi ns ur ance benef i t s expi r ed. 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520( a) . I n s t ep tw o, the C o m m issi o n er d eterm ines w h ethe r th e c lai m an t i s su ff ering fro m a se v ere i m pai rm ent . 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520( c) . T he C om m i s s i onerfound thatthe herni at ed di s cs of H ernandez ’ s cervi cal s pi ne cons t i tut ed a “ s ever e” i m pai r m entw i thi n the meani ng of the R egul at i ons , butthats he di d notes t abl i s h a s ever e ment al i m pai r m ent , gas tr i t i s , or s pas t i c col on. I n s t ep thr ee, the C om m i s s i onereval uat es w hetherthe evi dence es t abl i s hes4

th a t th e c laim a n t su f

f e rs f ro m a listed im p a irm e n t. If s o , the c laim a n t is a u to m a tica lly e lig ib le f o r b e n e f its. If th e c laim a n t d o e s n o t su f f e r f ro m a listed im p a irm e n t o r its e q u iv a le n t, h o w e v e r, t h e C o m m is s io n e r p ro c e e d s to th e n e x t s te p . 2 0 C .F .R . § 404. 1520( d) . A l though t he C om m i s s i onerfound thatH ernandez ’ s cervi cal s pi ne i nj ur i es w er e s ever e, he found theyw er e nots ever e enough t o m eetorm edi cal l yequal anyof the im p a ir m e n ts lis te d in 2 0 C .F .R . P a rt 4 0 4 , S u b p a rt P , A p p e n d ix 1 (“ L is tin g s ” ). I n s t ep four , the C om m i s s i onerr evi ew s w hetherthe cl ai m antr et ai ns the “r es i dual funct i onal capa ci ty ” t o per form hi s orherpas tr el evantw or k. I f s o, the cl ai m anti s not el i gi bl e fordi s abi l i tybenef i t s . 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520( e) . T he C om m i s s i onerfound and the A L J ag ree d that H ern an d ez retaine d the re sidu al fu n cti o n al ca p ac ityto p erf o rm s edent aryw or k t hatdi d notr equi r e fr equentl i ft i ng w i th the l eft , non- dom i nantarm . See 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 6 7 (a). F inally , in step fiv e the C o m m issi o n er c o n side rs w h ethe r w o rk exi s t s i n s i gni fi cantnum ber s i n t he nat i onal economythatthe cl ai m antcan pe r form gi ven hi s orherm 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 f u n c tio n c a p a c ity.” If

s o , th e c la im a n t is n o t e lig ib le f o r b e n e f its . 2 0 C .F .R . § 404. 1520( f) . I n t hi s fi nal s t ep, “the bur den of pr oduct i on s hi ft s t o the C om m i s s i oner , w ho m u st d e m o n stra te th e c laim a n t is c a p a b le o f p e rf o rm in g o th e r a v a ilab le w o rk in o rd e r to denya cl ai m of di s abi l i ty . ” Pl um m er , 186 F. 3d at428. T he A L J agr eed thatH ernandez coul d notper form herpas tr el evantw or k as a food ha ndl eroras s embl yl i ne w or ker , but that , us i ng the M edi cal - V ocat i onal G ui del i nes R ul e 201. 27, H ernandez coul d per form t he5

jo b s o f p a rt s in s p e c to r, p a rt s s o rt e r, p a rt s c le a n e r a n d c o il in s p e c to r. O n a p p e a l, H e rn a n d e z a rg u e s th a t th e A L J a n d D istric t C o u rt e rre d in th e ir fin d ing s w ith resp ec t t o step s tw o , three , fo u r an d fiv e o f th e se q u en ti al an aly sis. A s p art o f h e ra r g u m e n t , H e r n a n d e z a l l e g e s th a tth e A L J o m i t t e d e v i d e n c e , d i s t o r t e d t e s t i m o n y, and w as m ot i vat ed by“unmi s t akabl e bi as . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at3. T he G overnm ent r es ponds byar gui ng thateac h of the A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs w er e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence and thatH ernandez ’ s ad homi nem at t acks on the A L J ar e unw arr ant ed. III . U n d e r th e a p p lica b le r e g u latio n s, a n im p a irm e n t o r c o m b in a tio n o f im p a irm e n ts is nots ever e i f i tdoes nots i gni fi cant l yl i m i ta cl ai m ant ’ s phy s i cal orm ent al abi l i tyt o do bas i c w or k act i vi t i es . 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1521( a) . B as i c ment al w or k act i vi t i es i ncl ude u n d e rsta n d in g , ca rry in g o u t, an d re m e m b e rin g sim p le in stru c tio n s; u se o f ju d g m e n t; r es pondi ng appr opr i at el yt o s upervi s i on, co- w or ker s and us ual w or k s i tuat i ons ; and d ea li n g w ith ch an g es in a ro u ti n e w o rk se tt ing . 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 1 (b). A claim an t’ s sy m p to m s, d e f

in e d a s h e r o w n d e sc rip tio n o f th e im p a irm e n t, are n o t alo n e su f f icie n t to estab li sh a m en tal im p airm en t. 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 8 (a). Instea d , p sy ch iatri c sig n s are i ndi cat ed, as pr ovi ded i n t he ver s i on of the R egul at i ons appl i cabl e i n thi s pr ocee di ng, by “m ed icall yd em o n str ab le ph en o m en a w h ich in d icate sp ec ifi c a b n o rm ali ti es o f b eh av ior, af fe ct, tho u g h t, o ri en tat ion , an d co n tact w ith rea li ty . ” 2 0 C . F . R . § 4 0 4 . 1 5 2 8 (b). I n f i n d i n g th a tHern a n d e z d i d n o th a v e a s e v e r e me n t a l i mpa i r me n t , th e ALJ6

di s cus s ed the r egul at orypr ovi s i ons governi ng hi s deci s i on as w el l as the eva l uat i ons of D r s . L at i m er , Fi s cher , and M akhi j a. T he A L J not ed thatw hi l e D r . L at i m erdes cr i bed H e rn a n d e z a s s e v e re lyd e p re ss e d a t h is in iti a l ev a lu a tio n in A p ril 1 9 9 4 , the o n ly m edi cat i ons pr es cr i bed as of Sept ember1994 w er e Zant ac a nd L om ot i l , w hi ch tr eat gas tr oi nt es t i nal di s or der s . T hes e fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. H e al s o expl ai ned thatther e w as no evi dence thatH ernandez s oughtthe ca r e of a m ent al heal th pr ofes s i onal as i de fr om herfew vi s i t s t o D r . L at i m eri n 1994. Speci fi cal l y , D r . L at i m eronl ys aw H e rn a n d e z o n A p ri l 4 , 1 1 , 1 8 , a n d 2 8 , 1 9 9 4 . I n addi t i on, the A L J m ent i oned thatD r s . L at i m erand Fi s cherdes cr i bed H ernandez a s “ p lea sa n t,” a ter m th a t h e d id n o t f in d w a s g e n e ra llya ss o c iate d w ith in d iv id u a ls su f f e rin g f ro m m a jo r d e p re ss io n . H e a lso n o ted th a t D rs. L a tim e r a n d M a k h ija document ed ful l yi nt actor i ent at i on and al ertnes s , and norm al m emory , conce ntr at i on, a tte n tio n s p a n , ju d g m e n t a n d in s ig h t. T h e s e f in d in g s a re a ls o s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd . F urtherm ore, he m enti on ed thatneither doc t or fou nd psy cho t i c t rends, delusi on s, obs es s i ve- compul s i ve beha vi or s , l oos enes s of as s oci at i ons orfl i ght s of i deas . L i kew i s e, the r ecor d s uppor t s thes e fi ndi ngs . B eca us e ther e w as no obj ect i ve chr oni cl i ng of any conce ntr at i on/ cogni t i ve di s turbance , the A L J gave l i t t l e w ei ghtt o D r . M akhi j a’ s fi ndi ngs of ps y chomot orr et ar dat i on and w i thdr aw n appea r ance , D r . L at i m er ’ s concl us i on of p e rm a n e n t an d to tal d isa b ili ty , o r sta te a g e n c yp sy c h o lo g ica l co n su ltan ts f in d in g m o d e ra te re s tr ic tio n s .7

H e c o n c lu d e d b yf

in d in g th a t, w h ile H e rn a n d e z h a d a d e p re ss iv e d iso rd e r a n d p o sttr aumat i c s tr es s di s or der , theyr es ul t ed i n no m or e than s l i ghtl i m i t at i ons i n dai l yl i vi ng, s oci al funct i oni ng, conce ntr at i on, per s i s t ence , and pac e. T her efor e, he found thatthe e v id e n c e d id n o t s u b s ta n tia te a s e v e re m e n ta l im p a ir m e n t. D es pi t e the fa ctthatthes e fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bythe r ecor d, H ernandez ar gues atl eng th thatthe A L J si m plyshou l d n ot have d i scr edit ed the con cl usi on s of al l these re p o rts. H o w e v e r, th e o b se rv a tio n s c o n tain e d w ith in th e se re p o rts d o n o t ex p licitly i ndi cat e how H ernandez w oul d be unabl e t o per form w or k act i vi t i es beca us e of a ny m ent al i m pai r m entthatm aybe pr es ent . A l though D r . L at i m er ’ s r eportconcl uded that H ernandez w as di s abl ed, the A L J det erm i ned thi s concl us i on t o be uns uppor t ed, not i ng thatH ernandez onl yr ece i ved tr eatm enton fourocca s i ons , thats he w as onl ypr es cr i bed gas tr oi nt es t i nal m edi cat i ons , thatthe bodyof the r eportdi d nots uppor tthe conc l us i on, and thatD r . L at i m erhad a hi s t oryof cons i s t ent l ydecl ar i ng cl ai m ant s t o be di s abl ed reg ard less o f h is objecti v e f ind ing s. T h e A L J also stat ed that, w h il e D r. M ak h ij a’s rep o rt found ps y chomot orr et ar dat i on, nothi ng i ndi cat ed thatH ernandez ’ s m ent al i m pai r m ent p re v e n te d h e r f

ro m d o in g b a s ic w o rk a c tiv itie s . W e w i l l notdi s turb t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s hol di ng thatappr oved the A L J ’ s fi ndi ng th a t H e rn a n d e z f

a ile d to p ro v e h e r m e n ta l im p a ir m e n t to b e s e v e re . I V. H ernandez nextar gues thathercervi cal di s c i m pai r m enti s the medi cal equi val ent8

o f S e c tio n 1 .0 4 o f

th e L is tin g s a n d th e re f o re e n title d to p re s u m p tiv e d is a b ility. H ernandez bear s the bur den of pr es ent i ng m edi cal fi ndi ngs s how i ng thatheri m pai r m ent m e e ts o r e q u a ls a listed im p a irm e n t. B u rn e tt, 2 2 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 n .2 . “F o r a c laim a n t to sh o w th a t h is im p a irm e n t m a tch e s a listin g , itm u st m e e t a llof the s peci fi ed medi cal cr i t er i a. A n i m pai r m entthatm ani fes t s onl ys om e of thos e cr i t er i a, no m att erhow s e v e re ly, d o e s n o t q u a lif y .” S u lliv a n v . Z e b le y , 4 9 3 U .S . 5 2 1 , 5 3 0 (1 9 9 0 ). S ect i on 1. 04 requi res : D i s or der s of the s pi ne ( e. g. , herni at ed nucl eus pul pos us , s pi nal ar achnoi di t i s , s pi nal s t enos i s , os t eoarthr i t i s , degene r at i ve di s c di s eas e, fac et arthr i t i s , vert ebr al fr actur e) , r es ul t i ng i n compromi s e of a nerve r oot. . . or the s pi nal cor d. W i th: A . E v id e n c e o f

n e rv e ro o t co m p re ss io n c h a ra c ter ize d b yn e u ro -a n a to m ic di s tr i but i on of pai n, l i m i t at i on of m ot i on of the s pi ne, m ot orl os s ( atr ophy w i th as s oci at ed muscl e w eakne s s orm us cl e w eakne s s ) acc om pani ed by s ens oryorr efl ex l os s and, i f ther e i s i nvol vementof the l ow erback, pos i t i ve s tr ai ght - l eg r ai s i ng t es t( s i t t i ng ors upi ne) ; or B . Spi nal ar achnoi di t i s . . . or C . L u m b a r s p in a l s te n o s is re s u ltin g in p s e u d o c la u d ic a tio n . . . . 2 0 C .F .R . P t. 4 0 4 , S u b p t. P , A p p . 1 . H ernandez ar gues thathercondi t i on s at i s fi es the Li s t i ngs i f s he mer el yes t abl i s hes “pai n, s pas m , l i m i t at i on of m ot i on, s ens oryand r efl ex l os s , ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at26, and s he appe ar s onl yt o be ar gui ng thats he fi t s w i thi n the des cr i pt i on of “A , ” nerve r oot compre s s i on. She does not , how ever , di r ectthe courtt o anyr eportorotherevi dence speci fi cal l yi nd i cat i ng nerve root com press i on as charact eri zed b ym otoror sensoryl oss,9

n o r ha s an ysu ch ev iden ce b ee n fo u n d in a re v iew o f th e re co rd. Itfo ll o w s tha t th e A L J’s fi ndi ng thatH ernandez di d notm eetthe r equi r ement s of the Li s t i ngs i s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence . H e rn a n d e z f

u rth e r a rg u e s th a t th e A L J f a iled in h is d u tyto f

u llye x p lain th is fi ndi ng. H ernandez ci t es B urnettv. C om m i s s i oner , 220 F. 3d 113, 120 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , for h is a rg u m e n t th a t “th e A L J m u st re c ite e v id e n c e w h ich c o n tra d icts h is f in d in g a n d e x p lain the bas i s fori t s r ej ect i on as w el l as expl ai n[] the evi dent i arybas i s foreac h fi ndi ng ateac h lev e l o f th e se q u e n tial e v a lu a tio n .” A p p e llan t’s B r. at 2 5 . H o w e v e r, in B u rn e tt, w e o n ly hel d thata bar e conc l us orys t at ementbythe A L J thatan i m pai r m entdi d notm at ch the L i s t i ngs w as i ns uffi ci entforus t o conducta meani ngful r evi ew . B urnett , 220 F. 3d at 1 1 9

– 2 0 . H ernandez compl ai ns thatatthi s s t ep the A L J m er el ys t at ed that“ther e i s no do cum entat i on of an ynerve root com press i on as charact eri zed b ym otoror sensoryl oss, s pi nal ar achnoi di t i s , orl um bars pi nal s t enos i s r es ul t i ng i n ps eudocl audi cat i on, as r equi r ed b ym e d ica l li stin g s 1 .0 4 A , B a n d C , p e rta in in g to sp in a l d iso rd e rs.” T r. 3 0 3 . H o w e v e r, if the A L J found no document at i on of thes e s i gns , ther e i s nothi ng m or e he c oul d have d isc u ss e d . In f

a c t, th e A L J th o ro u g h lyd isc u ss e d th e m e d ica l ev id e n c e re latin g to H e rn a n d e z ’s c e rv ica l sp in e in ju rie s la ter in h is o p in io n , an d w e n t to g re a t len g th in expl ai ni ng the w ei ghtgi ven t o eac h m edi cal r eportand hi s r eas on forr ej ect i ng s om e of th e e v id e n c e .10

T h e re f o re , h is o p in io n a s a w h o le in d ica tes th a t th e A L J c o n sid e re d th e a p p ro p ria te evi dence and fa ct or s i n det erm i ni ng thatH ernandez ’ s i m pai r m entdi d notm eetthe r equi r ement s foranyl i s t i ng. T he A L J s at i s fi ed the B urnettr equi r ementof s uffi ci ent expl anat i on of the s t ep thr ee de t erm i nat i on. V. H e rn a n d e z a g a in a ss e rts th a t th e A L J o f f e re d in su f

f icie n t ex p lan a tio n f

o r h is re sid u a l f

u n c tio n c a p a c ityd e ter m in a tio n a n d a rg u e s th a t th e A L J w a s to o o p tim istic in h is fi ndi ngs r egar di ng herabi l i tyt o m ove herneck. H ow ever , i n hi s thor ough expl anat i on of the medi cal evi dence thathe r ej ect ed the A L J expl ai ned w hyhe di d notacc ept H ernandez ’ s neck movem entcompl ai nt s , ci t i ng the ce r vi cal r ange of m ot i on fi ndi ngs of D r . Q ual t erand phy s i cal ther api s tA bood- B runo. T her efor e the A L J pr ovi ded s ubs t ant i al evi dence and s uffi ci entexpl anat i on forhi s fi ndi ngs r egar di ng H ernandez ’ s neck. V I. He rn a n d e z a l s o a r g u e s th a tth e ALJ ’ s f i n d i n g th a tth e r e a r e j o b s i n th e e c o n o my th a ts h e c a n p e r f

o r m i s n o ts u p p o r t e d b ys u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . Be c a u s e th e ALJ d e ter m in e d th a t so m e o f H e rn a n d e z ’s im p a irm e n ts p re v e n ted h e r f ro m d o in g th e f

u ll r ange of s edent aryw or k, he cons ul t ed a voc at i onal expertt o det erm i ne i f ther e w er e j obs thats he coul d per form bas ed upon herage, educa t i on, w or k exper i ence , and r es i dual funct i on capa ci ty . T he voca t i onal expertcons i der ed thes e fa ct or s and det erm i ned that H e rn a n d e z c o u ld p e rf

o rm th e jo b s o f

p a rts in sp e c to r, p a rts s o rte r, v id e o m o n ito r, co ili ns pect or , component s i ns pect orand part s cl eane r . T he expe r tal s o t es t i fi ed thats uch j obs

e x is te d in s u f

f ic ie n t n u m b e rs in th e re g io n a l e c o n o m y . T he A L J ’ s di s cus s i on of m edi cal r eport s , r eas ons w hym anyw er e r ej ect ed, and the vocat i onal expert ’ s t es t i m onypr ovi de more than “a m er e s ci nt i l l a” of evi dence s uppor t i ng the A L J ’ s deci s i on. Pl um m er , 186 F. 3d at427. T her e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence forthe A L J ’s d e te rm in a tio n a s to s te p f iv e a n d h is c o n c lu s io n th a t H e rn a n d e z is n o t d is a b le d .

V II. W e not e ourdi s pl eas ur e w i th the conc l us oryand unpr ofes s i onal as s ert i ons that p e rv a d e H e rn a n d e z ’s b rie f. W e h a v e p re v io u slyre p rim a n d e d th is c o u n se l f o r h is

“ p e jo ra tiv e a n d u n f

o u n d e d a rg u m e n ts. T h e yill se rv e h is c lien t an d a d v e rse lya f f e c t h is cr edi bi l i ty . ” N eal v. C om m ’ r , 57 Fed. A ppx. 976, 978 n. 2 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T hatcomm ent i s equal l yappr opr i at e i n t he pr es entcas e. V III . Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed above , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatther e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tthe A L J ’ s deci s i on.

11