Musgrove v. Astrue, No. 3:2007cv00920 - Document 29 (N.D. Tex. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - CONCLUSION The hearing decision is affirmed in all respects. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 11/13/09) (jeh)

Download PDF

IN THE LINITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT NORTHERNDISTRICTOF TEXAS DALLASDIVISION SIDNEYMUSGROVE Plaintiff, NO. 3-07-CV-092O-BD V S. MICHAELJ. ASTRUE, of Commissioner SocialSecurity Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Sidney Musgrove seeksjudicial review of a final adverse decision of the statedherein,the to Commissionerof Social Securitypursuant 42 U.S.C. $ a05(g). For the reasons hearingdecisionis affirmed. I. Plaintiff allegesthat he is disableddue to a variety of ailments, including sleep apnea, back pain, and right knee problems. After his applicationfor disability benefitswas hypertension, a plaintiff requested hearingbefore an administrativelaw denied initially and on reconsideration, judge. That hearingwas held on June6, 2006. At the time of the hearing,plaintiff was 61 yearsold. He is a high school graduate,attendedcollege for one year, and has past work experienceas a gainful activity sinceNovember22, in calibrationtechnician. Plaintiff hasnot engaged substantial 2004. not The ALJ found that plaintiff wasnot disabledandtherefore entitledto disabilitybenefits. disc that established plaintiff sufferedfrom obesity,degenerative and Although the medicalevidence joint disease,sleep apnea, and hypertension,the judge concluded that the severity of those impairments did not meet or equal any impairment listed in the social securityregulations. The ALJ fuither determined that plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform a limited range of light work, including his past relevant work as a calibration technician.Plaintiff appealedthat decisionto the Appeals Council. The Council affirmed. Plaintiff then filed this action in federal court. il. that: (l) the ALJ failed to recognizehis In threebroad groundsfor relief, plaintiff contends his impairment (2) theALJ improperlyevaluated credibility; and(3) substantial allergiesasa severe : evidencedoesnot supportthe finding that he hasthe residual functional capacityto perform his past relevant work. A. whetherthe Commissioner's is Judicialreview in socialsecuritycases limited to determining were usedto evidenceand whetherthe proper legal standards decisionis supportedby substantial the evaluate evidence.See42 U.S.C.$ a05(g);Ripleyv. Chater,67F.3d 552,555(5th Cir. 1995). mind might acceptas Substantialevidenceis defined as "such relevantevidenceas a reasonable Ri . . 42 a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n c"h a r d s o n v . P e r a l e s , 4 O 2 U . S . 3 8 9 , 4 0 l , 9 l S1C t .0 , 1 4 2 7 , Austinv. Shalala,994F.2d1170,ll74 (5th Cir. 1993).It is morethana 28L.Ed.2dS42(1971); . Richardson,9l S.Ct. at 1427 The district court may not scintilla but lessthan a preponderance. but reweigh the evidenceor substituteits judgment for that of the Commissioner, must scrutinize the entire record to ascertainwhether substantialevidencesupportsthe hearing decision. Hollis v. Bowen,837 F.2d 1378,1383(5th Cir. 1988). A disabledworker is entitledto monthly socialsecuritybenefitsif certainconditionsaremet. 42U.5.C. g an@). The Act defines "disability" as the inability to engagein substantialgainful that physical mentalimpairment canbeexpected or of activityby reason anymedicallydeterminable periodof l2 months./d $ 423(dXlXA);Cookv.Heckler, or to resultin death lastfor a continued sequential a has 750F.2d 391,393(5th Cir. 19S5).The Commissioner promulgated five-step that must be followed in making a disability determination: evaluationprocess L The hearing officer must first ascertainwhether the claimant is engagedin substantialgainful activity. A claimant who is of working is not disabledregardless the medical findings. 2. The hearing officer must then determinewhether the claimed impairment is "severe." A "severe impairment" must physicalor mental ability to significantlylimit the claimant's do basic work activities. This determinationmust be made solelyon the basisof the medicalevidence. 3. The hearing officer must then determineif the impairment meets or equals in severity certain impairments describec in Appendix 1 of the regulations. This determination is madeusing only medical evidence. 4. If the claimant has a "severeimpairment" covered by the regulations,the hearingofficer must determinewhether the claimant can perform his past work despiteany limitations. 5. If the claimantdoesnot havethe residualfunctionalcapacity to performpastwork, the hearingofficer must decidewhether the claimant can perforrn any other gainful and substantial work in the economy. This determinationis made on the and basisof the claimant'sage,education,work experience, residualfunctional capacity. Seegeneratty,20 C.F.R. $ 404.1520(b)-(0. The claimanthas the initial burdenof establishinga U.S. 137 146n.5, 107S.Ct. of , disabilityin the first four steps this analysis.Bowenv. Yuckert,482 to 2287, 2294n.5, 96 L.Ed.zd 1I 9 ( I 987). The burdenthen shifts to the Commissioner show that ofperforming work in the nationaleconomy.Id. A finding that the claimant the claimantis capable is disabledor not disabledat any point in the five-step review is conclusiveand terminatesthe analysis.Lovelacev. Bowen,8l3 F.2d 55, 58 (5th Cir. 1987). In reviewing the propriety of a decisionthat a claimantis not disabled,the court'sfunction is to ascertain whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support the Commissioner'sfinal decision. The court weighs four elementsto determinewhether there is and evidence disability: (1) objectivemedicalfacts;(2) diagnoses opinionsoftreating of substantial age, (3) of evidence pain and disability; and (4) the claimant's and examiningphysicians; subjective and education, work history. Martinezv. Chater,64 F.3d 172,174(5th Cir. 1995),citing Wrenv. Sullivan,925 F.2d 123, 126(5th Cir. I 991). The ALJ hasa duty to fully and fairly developthe facts relating to a claim for disability benefits. Ripley,67 F.3d at 557. If the ALJ doesnot satisff this justified. .Id However,proceduralperfectionis not duty, the resultingdecisionis not substantially required. The court will reversean administrativeruling only if the claimant shows that his 980, 984 (N.D. Tex. 1997). rightswere prejudiced.Smithv. Chater,962F.Supp. substantive B. impairment his Plaintiff first complainsthat the ALJ failed to recognize allergiesasa severe which, in turn, adverselyaffectedthe determinationof his residual functional capacity. (SeePlf. provide: MSJ Br. at 3-6). The social securityregulations If you do not have any impairmentor combinationof impairments which significantly limits your physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, we will find that you do not have a severeimpairment and are,therefore,not disabled. the ofthis regulation, Fifth Circuit has the 20 C.F.R. $ 404.1520(c).Notwithstanding plain language would exclude far more claimantsthan the held that a literal applicationof section4A4.1520(c) statute intended.SeeLoza v. Apfel,2lg F.3d378,391(5th Cir. 2000),citing Stonev. Heckler,752 as can be considered not severe F.2d 1099,| 104-05(5th Cir. 1985). As a result,"an impairment only if it is a slight abnormality [having] such minimal effect on the individual that it would not be expectedto interferewith the individual's ability to work, irrespectiveof age, educationor work (5thCir. 1984). Estranv.Heckler,745F.2d340,34l I101,quoting ." experience Stone,752F.2dat If the ALJ does not set forth the correct standardby referenceto Stone or by an expressstatement recognizing the proper constructionof the regulation,the court must presumethat an incorrect See for has standard beenappliedandremandthe claim to the Commissioner reconsideration. Loza, 1 . a 2 1 9 F . 3 da t 3 9 3 ;S t o n e , 7 5 2 F . 2 d t l l 0 6 ; E i s e n b a c h vA p f e l ,N o . 7 - 9 9 - C V - 1 8 6 - B C , 2 0 0W L the 1041806at x6 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 29,2001). In this case, hearingdecisionspecifically citesStone as well as the applicableregulations. (SeeTr. at l9). Therefore,the only question is whether substantialevidenceexiststo supportthe finding that plaintiff s allergiesarenot a severeimpairment. (Seeid.). plaintiff relieson entriesin his medical the In an attemptto establish severityof his allergies, records,which documentsymptomssuchas wheezing,bronchitis,allergic rhinitis, chesttightness, of and shortness breath. (Seeid. at200,202-03,242). However, the diagnosisof symptomsor a that a condition is "severe."SeeHill v. Astrue, condition, without more, is insufficientto establish WL 2901530at *6-7 (S.D.Tex. Sept.1,2009);McClatchyv. Barnharl,No. No. H-08-3160,2009 2810100 *6 (W.D.Tex. Dec.3,2004),rec.adopted,2005WL at ASA-Q3-CA-0914-X,2004WL F.2d 162,165(5th Cir. 1983). (W.D. Tex. Jun.30, 2005),citingHamesv. Heckler,707 1593395 conditionhasmore than a minimal effecton Plaintiff bearsthe burdenof proving that the diagnosed in his ability to engage work relatedactivities. McClatchy,2004WL 2810100at *6. Here,plaintiff with and receivedtreatmentfor his allergies. (See was still working at the time he was diagnosed Tr. at 277-78,293-329). According to his treatingphysicians,plaintiffs allergy symptomswere . well-controlledwith immunotherapyand limited medication (Seeid. at 306,310, 3 14, 318, 322, 324,327,329,331, 333). Pulmonary function testing revealedgood results. (Id. at 327). Significantly,none of plaintiffs doctorsever placedany restrictionson his work activitiesbecause of his allergies. Nor did plaintiff ever indicatethat he had difficulty performing his job as a result that the of this condition. "[T]he ability to work while experiencingan impairment suggests at *7 (W.D. impairmentis not severe."I(inget v. Astrue,No.MO-07-CV-017,2007WL 4975206 Tex. Dec. 14,2007). Plaintiff also relies on the opinion of Dr. Sterling Moore, a testiffing medical expert,who problems"andstated that his ability to perform "respiratory that plaintiff experienced acknowledged work activities was limited by the needto avoid "pulmonaryirritants." (Tr. at 387, 389). An ALJ is entitledto rejectthe opinion of a medicalexpertif the evidencesupportsa contraryconclusionor by supported the recordas a whole. Hutchisonv. Apfel, No. 2-98-CVthe opinion is not adequately *8-9 (1.{.D. Tex. Mar. 9,2001); seealso Taylor v. Apfel,228 F .3d 409 087 ,2001 WL 336986at (Table),2000 WL 1056273at *l (5th Cir. Jul. 24,2000) (ALJ mayrejectthe opinion of any physician if not supportedby the record). In this case,Dr. Moore's opinion is contrary to the objective medical evidence,which doesnot indicatethat plaintiffs allergieshad any effect on his ability to work. Thus, the ALJ was not requiredto acceptDr. Moore's opinion testimony. Nor was the ALJ requiredto acceptplaintiffs testimonythat his allergy symptomsmake it (\eeTr.at201,394,402). There difficultforhimtousetheCPAPmachinetotreathissleepapnea. to is no objectivemedicalevidencein the recordto supportthat assertion.The only suggestion the contrary came from plaintiff himself, and that self-servingtestimony contradictedearlier reports made by plaintiff to his primary carephysician that he was "noncompliant" with his CPAP because he found it hard to fall asleepwhile wearing the device. (Seeid. at 278,281). In view of this evidence,the ALJ was entitledto find that plaintiffs allergiesare not a severeimpairment. C. his Next, plaintiff arguesthat the ALJ improperlyassessed credibility. (SeePlf. MSJ Br. at 7-9). Atthe administrative hearing,plaintiff testified that he was unable to work due to sleepapnea, high blood pressure, and pain in his kneesand back (Tr. at 394-96). The ALJ rejectedplaintiffs and testimonyconcemingthe intensity,persistence, limiting effectsof his symptomsas "not entirely credible." (Id. at 20). Specifically,the ALJ explained: The record showsthat the claimanthassleepapneathat is alleviated without any with the use of a CPAP machine. He has hypertension complaints of chest pain or other related problems. During the that on examination March 28, 2005,he stated claimant's consultative he could lift 20 pounds,standfor 30 minutesat a time, and sit for 60 minutes at a time. He deniedjoint swelling, and had not had any treatmentfor his sleepapneain 3 years. He reportedthat he cooked, washed dishes, did laundry, swept and vacuumed, went grocery churcheverySunday.Right kneex-ray drove,andattended shopping, changes.X-ray of the lumbar spine showedmoderateosteoarthritic with the claimant's compatible arthriticchanges showeddegenerative was findings. His hypertension age. His chestx-ray showednegative allegedonsetdate noted as stable. Follow-ups since the claimant's show that he infrequentlymentionedright kneeproblems. Physical exam on January18, 2006 revealedonly mild right knee swelling. only lackeda few degrees.Dr. Hamm only The claimant'sextension activity. limited the claimant from "aggressive" Although the claimant testified at the hearing that he can only stand 5 minutes and sit with pain, he had earlier statedthat he could stand '/rhour and sit 60 minutes. He is ableto drive, help his disabledwife, go to church,changeoil and checkfluids for his Ford, and take trips. Tylenol. The claimantfurthertestified He usesonly over-the-counter that he actually was not disabled and would have continued to work had he not beenlaid off due to outsourcingof his job, on the datethat benefitsfor he allegeshe becamedisabled. He drew unemployment He specifically testified that he would have 2 and % months. continuedto work had his iob not beenoutsourced. (Tr. at 20) (internal citationsomitted). The social security regulations establish a two-step process for evaluating subjective whetherthereis an underlying complaintsof pain and other symptoms.First,the ALJ must consider be medically determinablephysical or mental impairment that could reasonably expectedto produce alleged.SeeSSR 96-7p, 1996WL 374186at *2 (1996). Wheresuch the pain or othersymptoms and the an impairmenthasbeenproved,the ALJ must evaluate intensity,persistence, limiting effects of the symptomsto determinewhetherthey limit the ability to do basicwork activities. Id.; seealso 20 C.F.R. $ 404.1529. In addition to objective medical evidence,the ALJ should considerthe following factorsin assessing claimant'scredibility: the 1. The individual'sdaily activities; 2. The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the individual'spain or other symptoms; 3. the Factorsthat precipitateand aggravate symptoms; 4. The type, dosage, effectiveness,and side effects of any medicationthe individual takesor hastakento alleviatepain or other symptoms; 5. Treatment,other than medication,the individual receivesor hasreceivedfor relief of pain or other symptoms; 6. the otherthan treatment individual usesor has Any measures usedto relieve pain or other symptoms;and 7. Any other factors concerning the individual's functional limitations and restrictionsdue to pain or other symptoms. reasons his credibility for SSR96-7p,1996WL374186at *3. AlthoughtheALJ mustgive specific determination, "neither the regulation nor interpretive case law requires that an ALJ name, enumerate,and discusseach factor in outline or other rigid, mechanicalform. It suffices when the administrative decision is sufficiently specific to make clear that the regulatory factors were 863, 871 (E.D. Tex. 2005),citing Shavev. Apfel, considered." Prince v. Barnhart,4lS F.Supp.2d 238 F.3d 592,595 (5th Cir. 2001). In his decision,the ALJ cited to the applicableregulations,summarizedthe evidence,and for articulated legitimatereasons finding that plaintiffs testimonywas "not entirelycredible." (Tr. the at20). Contrary to plaintiffs argument,the ALJ did not mischaracterize record or make findings that plaintiff with plaintiffs testimony.r Nor is thereany medical evidenceto suggest inconsistent is precludedfrom all work activity. To the contrary, a residual functional capacityassessment performedby a stateagencyphysicianshowsthat plaintiff can perform a significantrangeof light by work. (SeeTr. at207-14). A similar conclusionwas reached Dr. Moore, the testifuingmedical plaintiffs credibility, in expert. (ld. at 388-89). The ALJ usedthe properlegal standards assessing evidence. by and the resultingdeterminationis supported substantial D. Plaintiff also challengesthe finding that he has the residual functional capacityto perform of his past relevant work as a calibration technician. According to plaintift the assessment his the because ALJ: (1) failed to evidence by residualfunctional capacityis not supported substantial include limitations resultingfrom his allergies;(2) improperlyrejectedthe opinionsof his treating of physician;and (3) did not make specificfindings regardingthe physicaland mental demands his eachargumentin turn. prior work. The court will address I The ALJ incorrectlynoted that plaintiff cookedand did the laundry. (SeeTr. at 20). In all other respects, the summarized evidence.Plaintifftestifiedthat he doesthe shoppingand helpshis wife the hearingdecisionaccurately -- who is disabled- with housekeeping vacuuming. (Id. at396,398, chores,includingwashingdishesand occasional the 399-400). With respectto pain management, ALJ correctlynoted that plaintiffs medicationis limited to over-thelike Tylenol. (Id. at396). Although plaintiffoccasionallytakesCelebrexif his doctor providesa counteranalgesics, sample,he hasnot beengiven a prescriptionfor strongerpain medication. (ld.). Plaintiff also testifiedthat he stopped preventedhim llom working. (ld, at 393). his and not because impairments working because job was outsourced, his job not beenoutsourced November22,2004, plaintiff said he would havegone backto work the next week. on Had his (rd.). l. The ALJ was not requiredto includeany limitationsresultingfrom plaintiffs allergiesin his the because, previously discussed, objective medical as residual functional capacity assessment evidencedoesnot supportany such limitations. As factfinder,the ALJ has the sole responsibility by andchoosingwhicheverlimitationsaremost supported the record.See for weighingthe evidence Muse v. Sullivan,925 F.zd 785,790 (5th Cir. 1991). Here, the ALJ properly weighedall the evidence and rejected plaintiffs claims that his allergies are severeand that his sleep apnea, incorporatesall hypertension,and pain are disabling. The residual functional capacity assessment by limitations that are supported the record. 2. physician, Jeffrey Dr. the ofhistreating the Plaintiffalsocriticizes ALJ for rejecting opinions weightso longasit is entitled controlling to is source generally Hamm. The opinionof a treating and techniques is not diagnostic acceptable clinicalandlaboratory by "well-supported medically 20 record." C.F.R. 404.1527(d)(2); in evidence [the]case with inconsistent theothersubstantial $ is (5th opinion notgiven source Evenif atreating Shalala,lF.3d357,364 Cir. 1993). Spellmanv. usingall of the factors "andmustbe weighed controllingweight,it still is entitledto deference WL 374188 *4 (SSA lul. 2, at SSR96-2p,1996 provided 20 C.F.R.404.1527 416.972." and in require 1996). Seealso Newtonv. Apfel,209 F.3d 448,456(5th Cir. 2000). Thesefactors consideration of: l. the physician'slength of treatment of the claiman! 2. frequencyof examination; the physician's the natureand extentof the treatmentrelationship; 4. the supportof the physician'sopinion afforded by the medical evidenceof record; 5. the consistency the opinion with the recordas a whole; and of 6. of the specialization the treatingphysician. good causefor absent 20 C.F.R. $ 404.1527(d)(2).A treatingsourceopinion cannotbe rejected in reasons clearlyarticulated the hearingdecision.SeeMyers v. Apfel,238 F.3d 617,621(5th Cir. 2001). More specihcally,the ALJ must clearly articulatethe weight given to the treating source opinion: [T]he notice of the determinationor decisionmust contain specific medicalopinion, for reasons the weight given to the treatingsource's in by supported the evidence the caserecord,andmust be sufficiently reviewersthe weight the specific to make clear to any subsequent adjudicator gave to the treating source'smedical opinion and the for reasons that weight. SSR 96-2p, 1996WL 374188at t4-5. The record showsthat Dr. Hamm, an orthopedicsurgeon,treatedplaintiff for pain, stiffness, joint disease his knees.(See at 340-41). Tr. in to swelling,and lossof functionrelated degenerative In a residual functional capacity questionnairedated January 18,2005, Dr. Hamm noted that plaintiffs symptomssignificantlylimited or precludedhim from: (l) maintainingthe attentionand neededto perform even simple work tasks;(2) walking more than three blocks; (3) concentration sitting for more than 30 minutes at a time or more than four hours in a day; (4) standing for more than five minutes at a time or more than two hours in a day; (5) working more than 30 minutes before changingpositionsor getting up and walking around;(6) lifting more than l0 pounds;(7) at and(8) maintainingregularattendance work. twisting, stooping,bending,crouching,or squatting; (Id. at 335-38). Dr. Hamm also determined that plaintiff should elevatehis legs at leastone-third of the work day. (ld. at337). The ALJ specifically rejectedtheseopinions, finding that plaintiff could lift or carry 20 poundsoccasionallyand 10 poundsfrequently,sit eight hours in an eight-hourwork day, standor stoop,kneel,crouch,and crawl, and change walk two hoursin an eight-hourwork day,occasionally decision,the judge positions id. only oncean hour. (See at 20). In a thoroughand well-reasoned was inconsistent with other functionalcapacity assessment that Dr. Hamm'sresidual explained evidencein the record,including the doctor'sown findings: I reject Dr. Hamm's opinion [ ]. Dr. Hamm treatedthe claimant in 2003 and2004when the claimantwasworking prior to beinglaid off. the Records indicates [] [sic] on 211812004 claimantwas doing very well, motion is good, minimal swelling, he is very happy. The claimant's allegedonsetdateis Novemberof 2004and Dr. Hamm did where a very not treat or care for the claimant until [ ] 111812006, limited exam found mild swelling. ACL, PCI, MCL and LCL are Okay. Dr. Hamm's treatmentnotes stated"I don't think he will be activity." The infrequenttreatmentwith able to do a lot of aggressive only one visit after the allegedonsetdateand actualtreatmentrecords from Dr. Hamm fail to supportthe assessment ]. Evidenceof the [ claimant's activities of driving, lawn work and changing oil in vehiclesalso fails to supportDr. Hamm's opinion. (ld. at2l). This explanation "goodcause"for giving Dr. Hamm'streatingsourceopinion constitutes limited or no credence.Although the ALJ did not make a specificfinding as to eachof the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. $ 404.1527(d)(2),he cited to the applicableregulationsand noted that all relevant factors had been considered. (ld. at l9). The regulations require only that the Commissioner"apply" the section 1527(d)(2)factors and articulategood reasonsfor the weight to assigned a treatingsourceopinion. See20 C.F.R.$ 404.1527(d)(2).The ALJ neednot reciteeach factor as a litany in every case. No error occurred in this regard. 1 Finally, plaintiff arguesthat the ALJ failed to make specificfindings regardingthe physical and mental demandsof his prior work. (SeePlf. MSJ Br. at 12-14). "When making a finding that remaining an applicantcan return to his prior work, the ALJ must directly comparethe applicant's functional capacities with the physical and mental demands of his previous work." Latham v. Shalala,36 F.3d 482,484(5th Cir. 1994),citing 20 C.F.R.$ 404.1520(e).The ALJ may not rely *1 (1982). jobs. Id., citing SSR 82-61 of on genericclassifications previous ,1982 WL 31387at of Instead,the ALJ must list the specific physical and mental requirements the previousjob and the assess claimant'sability to perform that job. 1d. The hearingdecisionfalls short of that requirement. In describingplaintiffs past relevant light work." (SeeTr. at work, the ALJ merely identified the job as "calibration technician/skilled of 21). Nowhere doesthe ALJ discussthe specific physical and mental requirements the job, or plaintiffs ability to perform the physical and mental demandsof his prior work' Nor did assess Tammy C. Donaldson,the vocational expert who testified at the hearing, explain the specific as merelynotedthat it was classified "light, SVP of 6'"2 Donaldson of demands this job. Instead, Despite this procedural error, plaintiff has failed to demonstrateprejudice. The court has already determinedthat substantialevidencesupportsthe ALJ's residualfunctional capacityassessment. would havebeendifferenthadthe ALJ to Thereis no reason believethat the disabilitydetermination made specific findings regardingthe physical and mental demandsof plaintiffs prior work. See *4 Latham v. Astrue, No. 7-07-CV-086-BD,2008 WL 4635396at 0{.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2008) (Kaplan, J.) (claimant was not prejudiced by ALJ's failure to make required findings as to the possibilitythat prior work wheretherewas no reasonable physicalandmentaldemands claimant's of would havebeendifferent);Parker v. Barnhart,431 F.Supp'2d the resultingdisabilitydetermination ' SVP, or specific vocationalpreparation time, is definedas "the amountof lapsedtime requiredby a typical acquirethe information,and developthe faciliry neededfor averageperformancein a worker to learn the techniques, specificjob-workersituation." Dikemanv. Halter,245 F.3d I182, I186 n.2 (lOth Cir. 2001),quotingU'S' Dep'tof Titles, App' B, B-l Defined in the RevisedDictionary of Occupational of Labor, Selected Characteristics Occupations requiredfor the worker to learnthe job. ( I 993). The higher the SVP rating, the more time that is 2005 Medinav. Barnharl, No. SA-04-CA-1057-FBN, WL 665,674 (E.D.Tex. 2006)(same); 2708789 *9 (W.D. Tex. Oct.l9,2005)(same). at CONCLUSION is Thehearing decision affirmedin all respects. 13, DATED: November 2009. JUDGts IUAGISTRATE STATES

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.