Opinion ID: 3022122
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Leech’s Residual Functional Capacity to Work

Text: Leech argues that the ALJ erred in finding that she retains residual functional 4 capacity to perform light, sedentary work. There was considerable evidence in the record, including the statements of Leech’s doctors, that indicated that she did not suffer from a debilitating medical condition, and Leech’s treating physician opined that she was “certainly” able to perform light sedentary work. Furthermore, the state agency physician, who is considered a highly qualified expert in Social Security Disability Evaluations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(I), opined that Leech could perform light work. Moreover, Leech testified that she cared for her own daily needs, such as cooking, cleaning, and walking her three dogs. She also took computer and language classes during her alleged period of disability. The ALJ’s determination that Leech retains residual functional capacity is accordingly supported by substantial evidence. 2. Ability to Perform Jobs that Exist in the National Economy The Commissioner’s finding that Leech could perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy was similarly well-founded. The Social Security regulations provide that, where a claimant can perform either light or sedentary work, but must alternate periods of sitting and standing, “a VS (vocational specialist) should be consulted to clarify the implications for the occupational base.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1566(e). In this case, a vocational expert testified, without qualification, that Leech would be able to perform a significant number of light jobs with a sit/stand option and that such jobs exist within the national economy. The VE’s unqualified, uncontradicted 5 testimony provided substantial evidence for the ALJ’s holding. 3. Subjective Symptoms and Credibility Leech’s final argument, that the ALJ erred in injecting personal bias into her credibility determination regarding Leech’s subjective complaints of pain and disability and, thus, deprived her of a fair hearing, lacks merit. The ALJ provided Leech a full and fair hearing and impartially considered all of the evidence before she determined that Leech’s subjective complaints of pain were not fully credible. The ALJ based her determination on the lack of support in the objective medical records, inconsistencies between Leech’s testimony and the doctors’ reports, and Leech’s other possible motivations for embellishing her complaints. Although Leech complained of debilitating pain, there is considerable evidence in the record, including the opinions of several of Leech’s doctors, that she did not suffer from any debilitating medical conditions. The substantial inconsistencies between her subjective complaints and the medical evidence undermine her credibility. See Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 130-31 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that the ALJ may reject testimony of subjective complaints where it is not consistent with medical evidence). Moreover, it was not improper for the ALJ to consider Leech’s financial interest in her ongoing worker’s compensation claim and underlying Social Security disability benefits claim and her possible addiction when making the credibility determination. See Gaddis v. Heckler, 76 F.3d 893, 896 (8 th Cir. 1996) (affirming an ALJ’s determination that a “strong element 6 of secondary gain” diminished the credibility of the claimant’s objective complaints). Thus, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility determination.