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 12-15-2009 

# Rob e r t Midd let on 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 . 09-2465

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 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 " Ro be r t Middle t on v

. C omm S oc i al S e c urity " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 101. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/101NOT 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- 2465

___________ RO BE RT M I DDL E T ON, 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 2: 09- cv- 00242) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e W i l l i am L . S t and i sh

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

D ece m ber3, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , FU E N T E S and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed : D ece m ber15, 2009 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM R obertM i ddl et on, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th 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” ) in th i s d i s a b i l i tyi n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s c a s e . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m.M i ddl et on s ubs equent l yamended hi s appl i cat i on t o change the al l eged ons etof 1 h is d is a b ility to M a y1 5 , 2 0 0 1 . 2 I. B e c a u se th e b a c k g ro u n d o f th is c a se is f

a m ili a r to th e p a rties , w e d isc u ss it o n ly br i efl yher e. I n J une 2001, M i ddl et on appl i ed forSoci al Secur i tyD i s abi l i tyI ns ur ance benef i t s ( “SSD I ”) , cl ai m i ng thathe had be en di s abl ed s i nce M ay24, 1995, due t o, i nt er al i a, conver s i on di s or derand anxi ety . A ft erhi s appl i cat i on w as deni ed i ni t i al l yand on 1 re c o n s id e ra tio n , h e re q u e s te d a h e a ri n g b e f o re a n A d m in is tr a tiv e L a w J u d g e (“ A L J ” ). A L J St even Sl aht a hel d s uch a he ar i ng i n D ece m ber2003 and s ubs equent l yi s s ued a deci s i on deny i ng M i ddl et on’ s appl i cat i on. I n M ar ch 2006, the A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed M i ddl et on’ s r eques tt o r evi ew the A L J ’ s deci s i on. I n M ay2006, M i ddl et on fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n the D i s tr i ctC our t , s eeki ng j udi ci al r e v i e w of

th e ALJ ’ s d e c i s i o n . Th e c o u r tu l t i ma t e l yr e ma n d e d th e c a s e , d i r e c t i n g th e ALJ to a d d re s s f

o u r i s s u e s n o t s u f

f ic ie n tly c o n s id e re d in h is o ri g in a l a n a lysis . O n re m a n d , a di ffe r entA L J – the H onor abl e G eor ge A . M i l l s , I I I – hel d a s uppl ement al hear i ng and a d d re ss e d th e iss u e s id e n tifie d b yth e D istric t C o u rt. In N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7 , A L J M ill s i s s ued an opi ni on deny i ng M i ddl et on’ s appl i cat i on. T he A L J concl uded that , al though M i ddl et on had a hi s t oryof ps eudo- s ei zur es and had s uffe r ed fr om m aj ordepr es s i ve di s or derand gene r al i zed a nxi etydi s or derdur i ng the r el evantt i m e per i od, he “w as capa bl e of maki ng a s ucce s s ful adj us t m entt o otherw or k thatexi s t ed i n s i gni fi cant3

n u m b e rs in th e n a tio n a l e c o n o m y .” (A L J O p in io n o f N o v . 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 , a t 1 5 .) A ft er the A pp eal s C ou ncil den i ed M i dd l et on ’s requestfor r eview of A L J M i l l s’ deci s i on, M i ddl et on s oughtr evi ew i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . I n M ar ch 2009, M i ddl et on and the C om m i s s i onerfi l ed compet i ng m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent . O n M ay6, 2009, t he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the C om m i s s i oner . M i ddl et on now ap p ea ls from that o rde r. II. W e h a v e 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 n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . A lth o u g h “ w e e x e rc ise p len a ryre v iew w ith re sp e c t to th e o rd e r f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, o u r re v iew o f

th e A L J’s d e c isio n is m o re d e f e re n tial a s w e d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e re is s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt [ it] .” K n e p p v . A p f e l, 2 0 4 F .3 d 7 8 , 8 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). “Subs t ant i al evi dence ‘ does notm ean a l ar ge orcons i der abl e amountof evi dence , but ra th e r 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 concl us i on. ’ ” H artr anftv. A pfel , 181 F. 3d 358, 360 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng Pi er ce v. U n d erw o o d , 4 8 7 U . S . 5 5 2 , 5 6 5 (19 8 8 )). If the su b stan ti al ev iden ce su p p o rt s the A L J’s fi ndi ngs , “w e ar e bound bythos e fi ndi ngs , even i f w e w oul d have de ci ded the fa ctual inq u iryd iffe ren tl y . ” F arg n o li v . M assa n ari, 2 4 7 F . 3 d 3 4 , 3 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). H avi ng r evi ew ed the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d, w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthat A L J M i l l s ’ deci s i on i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . I n hi s i nform al br i ef, M i ddl et on appea r s t o ar gue thatA L J M i l l s negl ect ed t o cons i derhi s anxi ety , depr es s i on,M i ddl et on has w ai ved hi s bal d di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m , forhe di d notr ai s e i ti n t he 2 pr ocee di ng befor e the D i s tr i ctC our t . See M ed. Pr ot ect i ve C o. v. W atki ns , 198 F. 3d 100, 1 0 5 n . 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) . M o r e o v e r , t o th e e x t e n th e c r i t i c i z e s th e c u rr e n ts t a t e o f S S DI g e n e ra llya n d a d v o c a tes c h a n g e s to th e sy ste m , tho se iss u e s a re o u tsid e th e sc o p e o f th is a p p e a l. 4 and par anoi a. T hi s ar gum enti s bel i ed bythe r ecor d. M i ddl et on al s o appea r s t o ar gue thatthe A L J dow npl ay ed the i m por t ance of the di s abi l i tyr at i ngs he r ece i ved fr om the Ve t e r a n s Ad mi n i s tr a t i o n ( “ VA” ) . Ye tf o rth e r e a s o n s g i v e n b yth e Di s tr i c tCo u r t , we agr ee thatthe A L J di d noterri n aff or di ng the V A ’ s di s abi l i tyr at i ngs onl yl i m i t ed w ei ght in e v a lu a tin g M id d leto n ’s a p p lica tio n . M id d leto n ’s r e m a in in g a rg u m e n ts f a il as w e ll. 2 A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s M ay6, 2009 or dergr ant i ng su m m aryjud g m en t i n fa v o r of the C o m m issi o n er.