*2 nature, the claimant’s physical ailment JONES, Before SMITH and EMILIO waxes and wanes its manifestation of GARZA, Judges. M. Circuit
disabling symptoms.
example,
For
if
alleged
had
that
degenerative
PER CURIAM:
disc
prevented
disease
her from maintain-
Appellant
rehearing
Frank seeks
of our
ing employment because every number of
opinion
Secretary’s
that affirmed the
deni-
weeks she lost
legs,
movement in her
this
of disability
degenera-
al
benefits for her
be
disability
relevant
determi-
tive disc
urges
disease condition.
She
nation.
opinion
our
conflicts with this court’s re-
Barnhart,
cent decision in Watson v.
bottom,
At
Watson holds that
(5th Cir.2002).
F.3d 212
Because her
order to
a
support
finding
disability,
claim
questions
raises
as to the proper
claimant’s intermittently recurring symp
Watson,
scope of
publish
this order on
toms must be of
frequency
sufficient
or
rehearing,
by our original (unpub-
followed
severity
prevent
the claimant from hold
lished) opinion.
ing
joba
significant
for a
period of time.
may explore
An ALJ
predicate
this factual
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
physical
connection with the claimant’s
diagnosis
ability-to-work
as in
well
petition
On
for rehearing, Frank con-
Usually,
determination.
Watson,
the issue of
tends that in
decided a week after
employ
whether the claimant can maintain
case,
opinion
the issuance of the
in her
significant period
ment for a
of time
Singletary
court
will
extended
decision1 to
in the
require
analysis regarding
be subsumed
disability
that in all
cases the Com-
claimant’s
employment.
missioner
make
obtain
finding
must
a
that a
Nevertheless,
arise,
claimant
capable
may
is
an occasion
employ-
sustained
Watson,
impairment,
ment in
disability
order to defeat a
where
claim.
However, nothing
thereof,
suggests
symptoms
Watson
and the
such
separate
the ALJ
a specific finding
must make
nature
re-
consideration of
garding the claimant’s
ability maintain whether the claimant
capable
main
every
case.
taining employment is required.
Bowen,
Bowen,
Singletary
(D.C.Cir.1988)
1.
v.
sustained even if applicant does II not contend that his situation resembles Singletary’s. reject approach. We Frank contends that the ALJ erred *4 Singletary simply interpreted “disability” only in considering whether could she ob under the Act to in to cases which a work, past tain her relevant not whether person could work for periods, short but she could maintain such on a work sus job. could not hold a It require, did not as tained basis. cites v. She Bow Frank suggest, seems to separate findings en, Cir.1986), 798 in F.2d 818 which “obtaining” “maintaining” job on a in person qualifies held that a as disabled every case, even cases in the appli- which job under the act if he a cannot sustain for suggest cant does not that any there is significant time, if period a of he even is difference the ability between issue of his capable sometimes of for short working work and his to sustain work. spurts. person A within disabled meaning of Act if he is “any
unable to do gainful substantial activ Ill ity by any reason of medically determin Frank also contends that the ALJ physical impairment able or mental which impermissible relied on in factors assess expected can be to result in or death which ing credibility. her Frank claimed that has expected lasted or can be to last for a work, able, she would if rather she were period continuous of not than 12 less disability than accept payments. The ALJ Single months.” 20 In C.F.R. 404.1527. that, true, noted if this statement were it tary, applicant a suffered from severe lend of support would her claim disabili impairment. mental he Although could ty. He decided that Frank’s statement time, for periods sometimes work short of credible, however, in part was at least job long he could a periods. never hold unemployed years because she was five working spurts held only We that short injured. was even she He reasoned before gainful constitute “substantial ac that, really if strongly Frank felt so about tivity” applicant and that therefore work, wanting to she have found would might qualify “disabled.” years some the five before Here, nothing suggests the record injuries. objects she sustained Frank can work only spurts. that in short reasoning, arguing employ that her Even Frank herself does not contend that ment to her prior injury simply status her situation Singletary’s: resembles she not relevant to the determination of her not allege does that she can work for short disability status. spans job. of cannot a In- but hold stead, just she that points language seems contend she also all. cannot work at therefore do not ALJ’s decision in which he her questions We any credibility see how the ALJ committed error of the light medical evidence. Singletary. under The ALJ seems to draw his own medical data, play can handball can hold person without who from some conclusions job, common sense medical down about expert’s help: relying on a wrong. matters is often significant undersigned The finds it decline to reach the merits of either disabling im- We allegations that despite because, if arguments, even of these two con- pairments since October any error, made would the ALJ error ... revealed no sultative examinations Bowen, be harmless. See Morris It seem atrophy. evidence (5th Cir.1988) (applying F.2d disabling symptoms reasonable analysis error bene harmless any preclude significant allegedly context). twelve-page, The sin fits sitting, lifting, standing, walking, very gle spaced relies little his would result observable carrying credibility. In assessment of Frank’s or atrophy muscle tone findings stead, factor in the deci overwhelming loss.... a variety medical evidence from sion was paragraph from this appear It would that Frank could in indicating sources his medical conclusions the ALJ made own job down old a clerical deed hold patient signs would show about whether *5 It is inconceivable that the ALJ worker. a result atrophy or muscle tone loss as would have reached a different conclusion alleged impairments. The Sev- of Frank’s record, accepted this even had ALJ has, cases, enth Circuit several warned at face value Frank’s statement she “playing making doctor” and against prefer to work. independent medical their assess- own AFFIRM We therefore the decision of example, in Schmidt v. Sulli- ments. For summary granting judg- the district court van, Cir.1990), 914 F.2d ment favor the Commissioner. Judge warned: Posner AFFIRMED. including But administrative judges, law judges of the Social Adminis-
tration, not must be careful to succumb temptation play doctor.... expertise of
The medical the Social Se- reg- curity is reflected Administration INVESTMENTS, LTD.; GDF REALTY ulations; birthright it is not Properties I, L.P.; Prop Parke Parke lawyers them. Common who L.P., II, Plaintiffs-Appellants, erties mislead; lay sense can intuitions about wrong. are often phenomena NORTON, Secretary, A. U.S. De Schmidt, Gale In former executive claimed Interior; partment of the Marshall P. to high that he return stress could Director, Jones, U.S. Fish and Wildlife con- positions because a heart executive Service, Defendants-Appellees. executive nevertheless dition. The re- played active and hand- physically mained No. 01-51099. forty a week. The
ball minutes ALJ Appeals, United States Court of heavily on fact in concluding relied this Fifth Circuit. executive was disabled. The March rejected reasoning, Seventh Circuit holding that the ALJ could not substitute for a Al- judgment
his medical doctor’s. might
though sense dictate common