2009 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 4-7-2009 

# F r anc i s N el son 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 . 08-4074

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_2009

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 2009 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
" F r anc i s N e l s on v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1571. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1571NOT 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. 08- 4074
F R A N C IS N E L S O N , A ppel l ant

v. M I CH AEL A STRUE, CO M M I SS I ON ER OF SOCI 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
. C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 2- 07- cv- 02622) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am H
. Y ohn

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 7, 2009 B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A pr i l 7, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM Fr anci s N el s on, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s a D i s t r i ct C o u rt or dergr ant i ng t he C om m issi onerof Soci al Secur i t y ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enti n N el s on’ s appea l of a2

d e c isio n d e n y in g h is c laim f o r su p p lem e n tal s e c u rityin c o m e (“ S S I” ) b e n e f its u n d e r T itl e XVI o f t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t yAc t , 4 2 U. S
. C. § § 1 3 8 1
- 1 3 8 3
. W e wi l l a f f i r m. O n S e p tem b e r 2 4 , 1 9 9 6 , N e lso n w a s in ju re d w h ile w o rk in g a t th e P h ilad e lp h ia I nt ernat i onal A i rpor t . A l t hough t he det ai l s of the i nci dent ar e uncl ear , N el s on, w ho w as r efuel i ng a truck, w as s oaked w i t h di es el fuel
. N el s on fi l ed an SSI appl i cat i on on M ar ch 10, 2 0 0 7 , s e e k ing d isab il ityb en ef it s. T h e S o cial S ec u ri tyA d m inistrati o n d en ied N elso n ’s ap p li ca ti on and hi s r eques tforr econs i der at i on. R epr es ent ed bycouns el , N el s on had a hear i ng befor e A dm i ni s t r at i ve L aw J udge Javi er A r r i s t i a i n J ul y 1998. B as ed on evi dence t hatN el s on w as bei ng t r eat ed foran anxi ety di s or der and depr es s i on, J udge A r r i s t i a vac at ed t h e d e n i a l o f

Nel s o n ’ s r e q u e s tf

o rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d r e ma n d e d t h e c a s e t o t h e Soci al S e c u rityA d m in istra tio n f o r e v a lu a tio n o f

a m e n tal d iso rd e r. O n re m a n d , the S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s t r at i on deni ed bene fi t s . N el s on t hen had a hear i ng befor e A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge M ar gar etL enzi
. I n Sept ember1999, J udge Lenzi rul ed that N el s on w as notdi s abl ed. T he A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed N el s on’ s r eques tforr evi ew , and Judge L enzi ’ s deci s i on beca m e the fin al de cisi o n o f th e C o m m issi o n er. N elso n so u g h t j u d ici al rev iew o f th e C o m m issi o n er’s d ec isi o n in D istri ct C o u rt . In 20 02 , t he D i stri ctC ou rtado pted the M agis t rat e Judg e’s recom m end at i on t o rem and t he case t o J udge Lenzi t o r eeva l uat e and di s cus s t he m edi cal evi dence , not i ng t hat t her e w as evi dence
s uppor t i ng a cl ai m of m ent al di s abi l i t y . I n D ece m ber2003, J udge Lenzi hel d a hea r i ng and addi t i onal evi dence w as s ubm i t t ed. A tt he end of the hea r i ng, N el s on’ s l aw y eras ked J udge3

L en z i t o c o n s i d e r a c l o s e d p e r i o d o f d i s a b i l i t y f r o m M a r c h 1 0 , 1 9 9 7 , t h r o u g h J a n u a r y5, 2001. O n J anuary26, 2004, J udge Lenzi i s s ued a f ul l yfavor abl e d eci s i on, deci di ng t hat N elso n w as d isab led by p o st- tr au m ati c stress disord er from M arc h 1 0 , 1 9 9 7 thro u g h Jan u ary 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 . Ju d g e L e n z i f u rth e r f o u n d th a t N e lso n ’s m e n tal im p a irm e n t im p ro v e d , an d th a t, aft erJ anuary 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 , hi s m ent al i m pai r m entno l ongerm ett he cr i t er i a of a n i m pai r m ent l i s t ed i n t he appl i cabl e r egul at i ons . J udge L enzi found t hat N el s on w as capa bl e of w or ki ng
a t se v e ra l jo b s a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t h e w a s n o t d isa b led a f te r J a n u a r y 2 0 0 1 . T h e A p p e a ls Co u n c i l d e n i e d Ne l s o n ’ s r e q u e s tf o rr e v i e w. N el s on s oughtj udi ci al r evi ew of J udge Lenzi ’ s J anuary26, 2004, deci s i on, whi ch w as t he fi nal d e c i s i o n o f

t h e Commi s s i o n e r . Th e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e c o n c l u d e d t h a ts u b s t a n t i al evi dence s uppor t ed J udge L enzi ’ s fi ndi ng t hat N el s on w as di s abl ed for t he cl os ed p eriod. T he M agi s t r at e J udge re j ect ed anys ugges t i on t hatN el s on’ s l aw y er , an expe r i ence d at t or ney speci al i zi ng i n social securi t yl aw , i nad equ at el y repr esent ed h i m . T he M agis t rat e Judg e al so
r evi ew ed medi cal r ecor ds t hatN el s on had s ubm i t t ed t o the D is t r i ctC our t , and det erm i ned th a t th e re c o rd s d id n o t w a rr a n t a re m a n d
. T h e D istri ct C o u rt o v erru led N elso n ’s objecti o n s an d ad o p ted th e M ag istrate Ju d g e’s
r eporta n d r ecomm endat i on t o gr antt he C om m i s s i oner ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o concl uded t hat s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t ed t he fi ndi ng t hatN el s on w as di s abl ed for t he cl os ed per i od and not t her eaf t er , t hat a r emand w as not w arr ant ed, and that N el s on’ s m al pr act i ce c l ai m s agai ns thi s at t or neyw er e not cogni zabl e. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.4

W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 42 U
. S. C
. § 405( g) and 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1291. O ur
r evi ew of the C om m i s s i oner ’ s fi nal deci s i on i s l i m i t ed t o det erm i ni ng w hethert hatdeci s i on is sup p o rt ed b ysu b stan ti al ev iden ce . H artranf t v. A p fe l, 1 8 1 F
. 3 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 0 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ). Subst ant i al evi dence “does not m ean a l ar ge or cons i der abl e amount of evi dence , butr ather
su c h re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s a re a so n a b le m in d m ig h t ac c e p t as a d e q u a te to su p p o rt a
c o n c lu s io n .” Id . (c ita tio n o m itte d ). A lth o u g h h is brief

is un clea r, N elso n co n tend s tha t he is p erm an en tl yd isab led. In concl udi ng t hat , aft erJ anuary31, 2 0 01, N el s on’ s m ent al i m pai r m entno l ongerm ett he
cr i t er i a of a n i m pai rm en tl i s t ed i n t he appl i cabl e r egul at i ons , J udge Lenzi expl ai ned that N el s on r ece i ved no ment al heal t h t r eatm entdur i ng t he per i od of J ul y1998 t o D ece m ber 2 0 0 0 . Ju d g e L e n z i sta ted th a t N e lso n h a d a p s y c h iatric e v a lu a tio n a t th e W a rre n E . S m ith H e a l t h Ce n t e r o n J a n u a r y 5 , 2 0 0 1 , t h a t s h o wed t h a t h e s t i l l h a d d i f f i c u l t y wi t h s oci al funct i on, at t ent i on, conce nt r at i on, and pac e. J udg e Le n z i e x p l a i n e d th a tNel s o n ’ s funct i oni ng t hen bega n t o s ubs t ant i al l y i m pr ove, not i ng t hathe had be en pr es cr i bed medi cat i on, and that p ro g re ss re p o rts re f

lec ted th a t h e w a s n o t as d e p re ss e d a n d th a t h e w a s d o in g w e ll o n h is
m e d ica tio n . Ju d g e L e n z i n o ted th a t N e lso n w ith d re w f ro m tre a tm e n t at th e W a rre n E . S m ith H eal t h C l i ni c i n 2001, and that a 2003 eva l uat i on r efl ect ed an e s s ent i al l ynor m al m ent al
s t atus exam ination
. J udge Lenzi al s o not ed thata medi cal expert , w ho had r evi ew ed N e ls o n ’s re c o rd s , te s tif ie d to N e ls o n ’s s u b s ta n tia l im p ro v e m e n t a s o f J a n u a ry 2 0 0 1
. T he evi dence r el ied u p o n byJ udge Lenzi i s cont ai ned i n t he admi ni s t r at i ve r ecor d.T o t he ext entN el s on cont ends t hathe i s perm anent l ydi s abl ed due t o hi s phy s i cal 1 im p a irm e n ts, Ju d g e L e n z i d id n o t f in d th a t N e lso n ’s p h y sic a l im p a irm e n ts m e t th e c riter ia o f a li sted im p airm en t un d er the ap p li ca b le reg u lat ion s. Ju d g e L en zi reco g n ized N elso n ’s p h y s ic a l im p a ir m e n ts a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t N e ls o n w a s a b le to w o rk w ith lim ita tio n s . N el s on has nots how n t hatJ udge Lenzi err ed. See 20 C
. F. R
. § 416. 920( a) ( 4) ( s et t i ng f o rt h e v a lu a tio n p ro c e s s f o r d is a b ility d e te rm in a tio n ).

5 T h e m e d ica l ex p e rt a lso o p in e d th a t, af ter Ja n u a ry5 , 2 0 0 1 , N e lso n n o lo n g e r m e t th e c riter ia of an i m pai r m ent l i s t ed i n t he appl i cabl e re gul at i ons . W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hat
s ubs t ant i al evi dence s uppor t s J udge L enzi ’ s concl us i on t hatN el s on w as notdi s abl ed af t er J anuary2001. 1 W e a lso a g re e , f

o r th e re a so n s se t f

o rth in th e d e taile d o p in io n o f th e D istric t C o u rt, t h a ta r e m a n d i s n o t w a r r a n t e d b a s e d o n t h e m e d i c a l r e c o r d s s u b m i t t e d b y N e l s o n . F i n a l l y, t o t he ext entt hatN el s on as s ert s t hat hi s l aw y er comm i t t ed m al pr act i ce byr eques t i ng a cl os ed per i od of di s abi l i t y , s uch a cl ai m i s not pr oper l y befor e us. W e not e t hat t her e i s no evi dence t hatN el s on’ s l aw y erl acke d author i t yt o r eque st a clos ed per i od of di s abi l i t y . T o t he contr ary , N el s on’ s l aw y ert ol d J udge Lenzi t hat he had cons ul t ed w i t h N el s on and thathe had
a u t h o r i t y t o a c c e p ta c l o s e d p e r i o d o f d i s a b i l i t y. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.