Lopez v. Comm Social Security , 270 F. App'x 119 ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-20-2008
Lopez v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-5018
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Lopez v. Comm Social Security" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1406.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1406
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 06-5018
____________
IRIS LOPEZ,
Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Appellee.
____________
On Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 05-cv-04509)
District Court Judge: Honorable Mary L. Cooper
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
March 6, 2008
Before: BARRY, JORDAN and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.
Filed: March 20, 2008
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Iris Lopez appeals the District Court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s
denial of her request for benefits. We will affirm.
I.
As we write for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and procedural history
of the case, we recount only that which is necessary to our decision.
Lopez alleged disability because of depression, as well as neck, back, shoulder,
and knee injuries that she sustained in an August 2001 car accident. The Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) found that Lopez has degenerative disc disease, internal derangement of
the right knee, right shoulder impingement, and depression. Although these constituted a
“severe” combination of impairments under the regulations, the ALJ found at step three
of the five-step sequential evaluation that they did not equal a Listed Impairment. Rather,
the ALJ determined that Lopez retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform
light work, and rejected her testimony of more severe limitations as “not entirely
credible.” Because Lopez’s most recent work as a cleaning crew supervisor was
performed at the light level of exertion, the ALJ concluded that she could return to her
prior work.
In this appeal, Lopez argues that the ALJ’s step-three finding is not susceptible to
meaningful judicial review. Lopez also argues that the ALJ’s assessment of her RFC is
“based on nothing.”
2
II.
The gravamen of Lopez’s appeal is that the ALJ ran afoul of our decision in
Burnett v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000), where we held that an ALJ must
provide sufficient reasoning for a court to conduct “meaningful judicial review” of the
ALJ’s step-three determination. Id. at 119. According to Lopez, Burnett requires the
ALJ to conduct “an analysis of the evidence against each relevant listing.” In this case,
the ALJ’s step-three finding states:
[Lopez] has no impairment which meets the criteria of any of the listed
impairments described in the Regulations (20 C.F.R. 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1). No treating or examining physician has mentioned findings
equivalent in severity to the criteria of any listed impairment. Particular
attention was given to listings 1.00 (musculoskeletal) and 12.00 (mental
impairments).
Although Burnett does not specifically hold that the ALJ must discuss the
applicable Listings in the decision, we have expressed concern that conclusory statements
do not satisfy Burnett. See Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 40 n.4 (3d Cir. 2001)
(noting that an ALJ’s step-three finding that “[n]o treating or examining physician has
mentioned findings equivalent in severity to the criteria of any listed impairment.
Particular consideration was given to Listing 1.00 (musculoskeletal system)” probably
was too conclusory to permit judicial review under Burnett, but declining to decide the
issue as the claimant had not raised it). Nevertheless, both Burnett and Fargnoli are
distinguishable from this appeal because the ALJs in those cases failed to analyze
3
sufficiently the evidence, including objective medical reports and the claimant’s
testimony. See Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119-20; see also Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 40 n.4.
We recently made clear that ALJs need not cite specific Listings at step three as
long as the ALJ’s review of the record permits meaningful review of the step-three
conclusions. In Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501 (3d Cir. 2004), we considered whether
the following determination was sufficient: “[A]fter carefully compar[ing] the claimant’s
signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings with the criteria specified in all of the Listings
of Impairments, the claimant’s impairments do not meet or equal the criteria established
for an impairment shown in the Listings.” Id. at 503 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Although the ALJ’s step-three analysis did not mention any of the Listings, we held:
[T]he ALJ’s step three analysis in this case satisfies Burnett. Burnett does
not require the ALJ to use particular language or adhere to a particular
format in conducting his analysis. Rather, the function of Burnett is to
ensure that there is sufficient development of the record and explanation of
findings to permit meaningful review. In this case, the ALJ’s decision, read
as a whole, illustrates that the ALJ considered the appropriate factors in
reaching the conclusion that Jones did not meet the requirements for any
listing, including Listing 3.02(A). The ALJ’s opinion discusses the
evidence pertaining to chronic obstructive and restrictive lung disease,
specifically referencing “[p]ulmonary function studies . . . consistent with
moderately severe obstructive and restrictive defects,” but pointing to the
lack of pulmonary complications, and a finding that claimant’s lungs were
clear. Also, the ALJ noted that claimant’s medical history showed no
frequent hospitalization or emergency treatments. This discussion satisfies
Burnett’s requirement that there be sufficient explanation to provide
meaningful review of the step three determination.
4
Id. at 504-05 (citations, citation to record, and footnote omitted). Instead of attempting to
distinguish Jones, Lopez intemperately refers to the decision as a “get-out-of-jail-free-
pass.” This is not the stuff of effective appellate advocacy.
Like Jones, here the ALJ discussed all of the relevant medical evidence before
concluding that Lopez was not entitled to benefits. On this point, the District Court
found:
In the subsequent parts of his analysis, the ALJ discussed the evidence
relating to, inter alia: (1) the chiropractor’s diagnosis of cervical
sprain/strain and left brachial neuralgia, and lumbar disc bulges; (2) the note
from [Lopez’s] neurologist indicating that she was unable to work; (3) the
orthopedist’s diagnosis of left shoulder pain and radicular pain due to a C5-
6 injury; (4) the neurosurgeon’s diagnosis of a herniated disc and severe
degenerative disease at L5-S1 and recommendation that [Lopez] is a
possible candidate for spinal fusion; (5) the results from [Lopez’s]
consultative psychiatric examination, psychiatric evaluation, and mental
impairment questionnaire; and (6) [Lopez’s] torn lateral meniscus in her
knee. The ALJ also specifically identified [Lopez’s] testimony and
subjective allegations that he took into consideration.
Nowhere in her brief does Lopez contend that the ALJ overlooked any of the medical
evidence; rather, she claims that a remand is necessary because the ALJ failed to apply
that evidence to specific Listings. But Lopez admits:
[Lopez] has restrictions in both shoulders. [She] has restrictions in her right
knee. [She] has restrictions throughout her lower back. [She] has
restrictions in her cervical spine. [She] has restrictions in her ability to
think, concentrate, and deal with the most rudimentary changes in a
vocational setting. These are restrictions based on evidence that the ALJ
cites with approval and without rejection.
5
As Lopez noted, the ALJ did indeed review all of this medical evidence. The ALJ noted
that although Lopez suffered from back, neck, knee, and shoulder pain, those conditions
had improved through surgery. The ALJ also addressed the nonexertional limitations
stemming from Lopez’s depression, and concluded that, although “she is unable to
perform complex tasks, and is unable to maintain attention and concentration for an
extended period of time,” these limitations did not prevent her from working. This was
consistent with the medical evidence of record, which indicated that Lopez’s depression
was not of Listing-level severity.
In the final analysis, we note that although a discussion of the specific applicable
Listings certainly would have been helpful, our primary concern always has been our
ability to conduct meaningful judicial review. See Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119; see also
Jones, 364 F.3d at 505. The ALJ’s failure to discuss specific Listings is not reversible
error under Jones because the ALJ analyzed all the probative evidence and explained his
Decision sufficiently to permit meaningful judicial review.
III.
Lopez next claims entitlement to a remand because the ALJ’s step-four
determination that she could return to her prior work was “based on nothing.” At step
four, the Commissioner determines whether, despite her severe impairments, the claimant
retains the RFC to perform her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), (f),
416.920(e), (f). RFC is “the most [the claimant] can still do despite [her] limitations.”
6
See 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(1). “Although the impairment must be medically
determinable, it need not be a “severe” impairment to be considered in the RFC
assessment.” See Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 554 n.7 (3d Cir. 2005); see also
20 C.F.R. § 404.1523.
Significantly, the ALJ is required only to include limitations which he finds
credible. See Burnett, 220 F.3d at 121, see also Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d
Cir. 1999). Thus, to the extent that the ALJ found Lopez’s other alleged limitations less
than credible, they were properly excluded from the RFC. See Burns v. Barnhart, 312
F.3d 113, 129 (3d Cir. 2002). Lopez bears the burden of demonstrating that she lacks
sufficient RFC to perform her past relevant work. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).
In this case, the District Court found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s
finding that Lopez could perform “close to a full range of light work.” The evidence we
cited in our discussion of the ALJ’s step-three analysis supports the conclusion that,
although Lopez remains in pain from the injuries she sustained in the August 2001 car
accident and is plagued by depression, the treatment she received has rendered her
capable of performing at least light work. Indeed, as the District Court noted, Agency
physicians as well as Lopez’s own surgeon concluded that Lopez was capable of
returning to her old job as a cleaner.1
1
Lopez offered two opinions that she was totally disabled, but the ALJ properly
noted that one was a simple conclusion and the other was not offered by a doctor. See 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(d)(1), 404.1527(d), 416.913(d)(1), and 416.927(d).
7
Lopez’s insistence that the ALJ failed to consider the effect of her shoulder and
knee impairments is incorrect because the ALJ relied on the RFC assessment of an
Agency physician who considered these limitations. And notwithstanding Lopez’s
complaint that the ALJ failed to consider the effect of her concentration and memory
deficits when determining that she could return to her job as a cleaner, we note that Lopez
was required to show that these deficits precluded her from returning to her old job. See
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e).
Finally, we reject Lopez’s contention that the ALJ was required to call a vocational
expert. At step four of the sequential evaluation process, the decision to use a vocational
expert is at the discretion of the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(2); see also Social
Security Ruling 00-4p (2000). In determining the exertional level of the claimant’s past
relevant work, the ALJ also is entitled to rely on the Dictionary of Occupational Titles
(4th ed. 1991) (DOT). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1560(b)(2), 404.1566(d)(1), 404.1567.
Here, Lopez testified that she had worked as a supervisor of a cleaning crew. The DOT
lists the position of cleaner as light work. See DOT 323.687-014. The ALJ also heard
Lopez testify as to the work she performed during her previous employment; her
testimony did not suggest any complex vocational issues. Based on this evidence, we
cannot say that the ALJ erred when he concluded that Lopez’s prior work was performed
at the light level.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
8