2008 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 9-9-2008 

# M agwo o d 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 . 07-3787

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_2008

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 2008 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 " M agwood v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 551. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/5511 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 C as e N o: 07- 3787 M AR Y J . M AGWOOD, 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 f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 06- cv- 01184 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e J . C ur t i s J oyner S u b m itted P u rsua n t t o T h ir d C ir cu itL . A . R . 3 4 . 1 (a)

Sept ember9, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , M c K E E , a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed: Sept ember9, 2008) OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge . M aryJ. M ag w o o d ap p ea ls from the ju d g m en t of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, w hi ch af fi r m ed the deni al bythe C om m i s s i oner of Soci al Secur i t yof M agw ood’ s appl i cat i on forbenef i t s underT i t l e X I V of the Soci al2

S e c u ri ty A c t. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt e x e rc is e d ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ). A p p e llate ju risd ictio n e x ists u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r re v iew is lim ited to d eterm ining w h ethe r th ere is sub stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe C o m m issi o n er’s decis i on . 42 U . S . C . § 4 05 (g) . S ub st anti al evidence is “such rel evan tevidence 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. ” R i char ds on v. P er al es , 4 0 2 U .S . 3 8 9 , 4 0 1 (1 9 7 1 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). B eca us e w e conc l ude thatt he C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on i s nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , w e w i l l r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entand w i l l r emand forfur t her p ro c e e d in g s . M agw ood appl i ed forSuppl ement al Secur i t yI ncome benefi t s i n 2004, al l egi ng d isa b ili tyo n th e b a sis o f d e p re ss io n a n d a h isto ryo f a lco h o l ab u se , w h ich w a s in r emi s s i on. H erdepr es s i on w as at t r i but abl e i n par tt o t he fa ctthathers on had bee n d ec lared d ep en d en t i n 2 0 0 3 w h en h er sign ifi ca n t othe r bro k e h er so n ’s arm . T h ere af ter, M a g w o o d sto p p e d d rin k in g a n d b e g a n to p ro v id e a to x sc re e n o n a w e e k lyo r b iw e e k ly b a sis to v e rif

yh e r a b stin e n c e f

ro m a lco h o l. S h e w a s tre a ted w ith a n a n tid e p re ss a n t, a tten d e d o n a w e e k lyb a sis e ith e r in d iv id u a l o r g ro u p th e ra p y , p a rticip a ted in w e e k ly s es s i ons w i t h a couns el orforvi ct i m s of abus e, and w as eval uat ed byherps y chi atr i s ton a m ont hl yorbi m ont hl ybas i s . M agw ood t es t i fi ed thats he s uffe r ed fr om cry i ng s pel l s , and that h er a b il ityto co n ce n tr ate a n d to sleep w ere af fe cted b yh er d ep ression . A s su p p o rt forhercl ai m of di s abi l i t y , one of M agw ood’ s tr eat i ng ps y chi atr i s t s atan outpat i entSee A m er i can Ps y chi atr i c A s s oci at i on, D i agnos t i c and Stat is t i cal Manualof 1 MentalD isorders , 32- 34 ( 4t h ed. T extR evi s i on 2000) . T he s cal e i s us ed t o r epor tthe “ c lin icia n ’s ju d g m e n t o f th e in d iv id u a l’s o v e ra ll l e v e l o f f u n c tio n in g ” in lig h t o f

h is p s y c h o lo g ic a l, s o c ia l a n d o c c u p a tio n a l lim ita tio n s . Id . T h e G A F sc a le r a n g e s f ro m 1 to 1 0 0 . 3 p sy ch iatri c c en ter, D r. D u ck ett , o p ined that itw as u n li k elythat sh e c o u ld p erf o rm s us t ai ned w or k beca us e s he had mar ked l i m i t at i ons i n herabi l i t yt o m ai nt ai n s oci al f u n c tio n in g , to c o n c e n tra te a n d p e rsis t in a tas k , to in ter a c t ap p ro p ria telyw ith th e p u b lic and cow or ker s , and t o r es pond appr opr i at el yt o w or k pr es s ur es . M agw ood’ s s cor e on the G lo b a l A ss e ss m e n t o f

F u n c tio n in g S c a le ( G A F ) ra n g e d f ro m 5 5 -6 0 , a s c o re w h ich is i ndi cat i ve of moder at e s ym pt om s orm oder at e di ffi cul tyi n s oci al oroccupa t i onal funct i oni ng. T he pr ogr es s not es of hertr eat i ng ps y chi atr i s t s cons i s t ent l ydocument ed

1 M agw ood’ s m ood as depr es s ed. T he A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge ( A L J ) concl uded thatM agw ood’ s m ent al im p airm en t of

m ajor d ep ression an d alco h o l abu se d isord er, i n rem issi o n , w ere n o t sev ere i mp a i rme n t s a ts t e p t wo i n t h e s e q u e n t i a l a n a l y s i s s e to u ti n 2 0 C. F . R. § 4 0 4 . 9 2 0 . He m ade thi s det erm i nat i on aft erw ei ghi ng the medi cal evi dence fr om M agw ood’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci ans , t he cons ul t at i ve exa m i nat i on of a ps y chol ogi s t , and a c ons ul t at i ve r evi ew of a p s y c h ia tr is t, a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t h e r t re a tin g p s y c h ia tr is t’ s o p in io n w a s u n w o rt h yo f c re d it. M a g w o o d a p p e a led . T h e D istric t C o u rt a d o p ted th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s r e p o rt, w hi ch r ecomm ended thatthe C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on be af fi r m ed. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed, chal l engi ng agai n t he A L J ’ s fi ndi ng thats he di d nothave a s ever e i m pai r m ent4

ats t ep tw o i n t he s equent i al anal y s i s and as s ert i ng thatthe A L J err ed i n di s count i ng her tr e a tin g p h y s ic ia n ’s o p in io n . I n N ew el lv. C om m is s i oner , 347 F. 3d 541 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , w e i ns t ruct ed thats t ep t w o of the s equent i al anal y s i s “i s a de m i nim is scr eening d evice t o d i spose of groun dles s c laim 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 c a n b e f

o u n d ‘n o t se v e re ’ o n lyif t he evi dence es t abl i s hes a s l i ghtabnorm al i t yora combi nat i on of s l i ghtabnorm al i t i es w hi ch have ‘ no m or e than a mi ni m al eff ecton an i ndi vi dual ’ s abi l i t yt o w or k. ’ ” I d. at546 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W e dec l ar ed that“r eas onabl e doubt s on s ever i t yar e t o be r es ol ved i n favorof the cl ai m ant . ” I d. a t 5 4 7 . I n McC r ea v. C om m is s i oner , 370 F. 3d 357, 360 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , w e r ei t er at ed N e w e ll ’ s t eac hi ng t hatt he “bur den pl ace d on an appl i cantats t ep tw o i s notan exa ct i ng one. ” Ther e, w e det erm i ned thatt he A L J err ed byconcl udi ng thatthe appl i cantdi d not h av e a sev ere im p airm en t atstep tw o in the seq u en ti al an aly sis. W e p o inted o u t th at th ere w as obj ect i ve medi cal evi dence s uppor t i ng the cl ai m ant ’ s compl ai ntof bac k pai n, thather tre a tm e n t h isto rysh o w e d th a t h e r a ilm e n t h a d m o re th a n a m in im a l im p a c t o n h e r a b ili ty to d o b a sic w o rk a c tiv iti e s, a n d th a t sh e h a d a n o p in io n f ro m h e r tre a tin g p h y sic ian in s uppor tof hercl ai m . T he A L J ’ s r efus al t o att ach a nys i gni fi cantw ei ghtt o t he tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on, w e r eas oned, “mayorm aynotbe r el evanti n l at ers t eps of the s equent i al anal y s i s . . . butt heycert ai nl ydo notcarr ythe dayats t ep tw o. ” 370 F. 3d at 362 ( ci t i ng 20 C . F. R . § 404. 1520( d) - ( f) r egar di ng w hetheran i m pai r m entm eet s a l i s t ed5

i m pai rm ent , pr event s an i ndi vi dual fr om doi ng thei rpas tr el evantw or k, orpr event s them f ro m d o in g a n yo th e r w o rk in th e n a tio n a l ec o n o m y ). B e c a u se th e re c o rd in its e n tirety d i d n o tp r o v i d e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r tth e AL J ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n a ts t e p two , we rever sed t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s j ud gm ent and rem and ed fo r fur t her proceedings. N e w e lland McC r ea i ns t ructthatthe det erm i nat i on of w hetheran appl i canthas m et herbur den ats t ep tw o i n t he s equent i al anal y s i s s houl d focus upon t he evi dence adduce d byt he appl i cant . I f s uch evi dence demonstr at es thatthe appl i canthas “more than a

‘ s l i ghtabnorm al i t y , ’ t he s t ep- t w o r equi r ementof ‘ s ever e’ i s m et , and the s equent i al eval uat i on pr oces s s houl d cont i nue. ” N e w e ll , 3 4 7 F .3 d a t 5 4 6 ; McC r ea , 370 F. 3d at362; 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .9 2 0 (d )- (f ). I n t hi s cas e, t he A L J i gnor ed McC r ea ’ s i ns t ruct i on byw ei ghi ng the medi cal e v id e n c e a d d u c e d b yM a g w o o d , inc lu d in g th e o p in io n f ro m h e r tre a tin g p sy c h iatris t, agai ns tt he cons ul t at i ve exa m i nat i on of a ps y chol ogi s tand a c ons ul t at i ve r evi ew of a ps y chi atr i s t . T hi s w as err or . T he medi cal evi dence adduce d byM agw ood demonstr at ed th a t sh e w a s re c e iv in g p sy c h iatric se rv ice s o n a re g u lar b a sis , w a s e n g a g e d in th e ra p e u tic couns el i ng on a w eekl ybas i s , w as t aki ng ant i depr es s ant s , w as as s es s ed as funct i oni ng w ith a G A F o f

5 5 -6 0 , an d h a d a n o p in io n f ro m a tre a tin g p sy c h iatris t th a t sh e w a s u n a b le t o w ork on a sust ai ned basi s. T his w as m ore than suffici ent t o sat i sfyst ep tw o’s de m in im is th re s h o ld . N

e w e ll , 3 4 7 F .3 d a t 5 4 6 ; McC r ea , 3 7 0 F . 3 d a t3 6 1 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we concl ude thatt he A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on thatM agw ood di d nothave a s ever e i m pai r m entatB eca us e w e conc l ude thatt he A L J err ed ats t ep tw o i n t he s equent i al anal y s i s and 2 b ec au se w e w il l r em an d fo r fu rth er p roc ee d ing s, w e n ee d n o t add ress M ag w o o d ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e A L J im p ro p e rl yd is c o u n te d h e r t re a tin g p h y s ic ia n ’s o p in io n . 6 s t ep tw o i n t he s equent i al anal y s i s i s nots uppor t ed s ubs t ant i al evi dence . Forthatr eas on, w e w i l l rever se the judgm ent of t he D i stri ctC ou rtand rem and for further proceedings, w h ich w ill a llo w th e m e d ica l ev id e n c e to b e w e ig h e d a n d e v a lu a ted a t th e latte r ste p s in t he sequ enti al analy si s. 2