*1 Agent testimony.7 in he learned dur- tained Peterson’s We testified that ing. Peterson plea negotiations in the vacate Pierrot’s sentence and remand to of ing the course accusing sentencing was district court for a new trial that Pierre the of the midst throwing hearing. men the overboard. Pierrot during meeting plea a be- came out

This say hearsay general- This is not to that is (Pierre’s at- Aguilar prosecutor, the tween sentencing proceedings. at ly unreliable of Pierre’s torney), Peterson. and only hold that in the narrow confines of We the blame to one motive to shift case, many this where so indicia of unrelia- co-defendants, Pier- his accusation of his existed, im- bility where the district court reliability problems. raises rot obvious keeping far with posed sentence out lacking. previ- is also As Corroboration averages, local national and where the and noted, of the sworn statements ously none hearsay triggered it was the that that sen- coincides two declarants with the of these tence, deprived the defendant was of due sentencing. Agent Peterson told at story process. Haitian who testi- witnesses None The convictions of Reme and Pierrot are trial he saw government the at said fied for AFFIRMED; we VACATE Pierrot’s sen- over- and Alliance threw Vixamar who and REMAND the tences to district court con- Nothing the trial record board. sentencing hearing. for a new story that Pierrot the declarants’ firms and Alliance. killed Vixamar sentencing at government argued stories

that the declarants’ corroborated other, unpersuasive. we this but find each below, we both declarants testified Had deter- compare the two stories and WATSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, Jessie degree they to whether and what mine present In the each other. corroborated however, Agent all we have is posture, HECKLER, Margaret Secretary of M. testimony story the told Peterson’s that Services, and Human Health by during plea negotiations Aguilar him Defendant-Appellee. as history same of events recounted the No. 83-7391 by Baptiste after the trial.6 laid out that Non-Argument Calendar. hinges on view of the all Peterson’s Since Appeals, Court of United States stories, is not the sort external two this Eleventh Circuit. that would aid determi- confirmation the hearsay state- given nation of whether Aug. 1984. corroborated, hence, reliable. ment Pier- hold that the district court denied sen- process resting 30-year his rot due upon declarations con- hearsay the

tence below, Ienged finding they attorney argued the that were unavailable. Pierrot’s As defendant 6. may opportunities fabrica- is ir- have been Whether the declarants were unavailable relevant, however, there Baptiste, a two between the declarants. the tion government to the determination of witness, the stand at trial took reliability hearsay statements. Fed.R. as a defense witness. testified on Pierre’s behalf 804(b)(5), hearsay excep- which Evid. deals opportunity question Aguilar then had witnesses, requires still tions unavailable story disappearances Baptiste his about guarantees of trustworthiness circumstantial Pierre answers to discuss with his client is unavailable. when declarant by given Baptist. sentencing, hearsay apply see rules do 1101(d)(3), 804(b)(5) indicates Fed.R.Evid. Rule Baptiste Agent testified that Peterson apart separate reliability is an issue at their known not be located last Pierre could availability. appearances at the obtain their addresses to attorney chal- sentencing proceeding. Pierrot’s *2 1170 Keith, Sutherlin,

Thomas G. Jerrilee P. Legal Alabama, Services of North-Central Huntsville, Ala., plaintiff-appellant. for Thornton, Mary Atty., P. Asst. U.S. Bir- Ala., mingham, defendant-appellee. GODBOLD, Judge, Before Chief RO- TJOFLAT, Judges. NEY and Circuit PER CURIAM: appeal from the On district af- court’s benefits, firmance of a disability denial of argues Jessie Watson the determination past that she could return to her as a work collator is not substantial evi- pain prop- dence and that Watson’s was not erly considered. affirm.

Watson, years old at the time of decision, grade a third has education and is past unable read well. Her experience has been collator in a printing company packager and assembler of

parts. automotive and missile application disability

Watson filed an impairments resulting benefits because of hip infection. arthritis She had Horn, by Dr. been treated Louis ortho- through Security of the Social De- June Administration. from December pedist, synovi- diagnosed In Dr. Horn spite complaints pain, he found elbows, and ulnar right wrist tis not to be severe He noted some hands bilaterally. X-rays of her diag- pain Fambrough her wrists. Dr. a rheumatoid bony erosions and revealed having fairly nosed Watson as severe rheu- January right elbow. nodule on *3 matoid arthritis. reported improvements February 1980 she Dr. Yelton did not examine Watson but in the wrist. In De- following injection an Security reviewed her for the record Social right hip she was treated for cember 1980 completed Administration. He a residual hip ro- pain. Examination revealed loss capacity concluding functional evaluation hospitalized and under- She was tation. carry lift 20 could and/or drainage surgical procedure open went pounds occasionally pounds rheumatoid to ten fre- right hip. the She also had right finger and the nodules from the little quently. He also stated that she could hospi- While in the right elbow removed. stand, walk, and sit for at least six hours swelling of the tal, examination revealed eight-hour workday. out of an He further joints possible and metacarpal phalangeal only occasionally noted that Watson could grip strength joint due to decrease perform pushing pulling and movements examination of March (arm controls) A consultative leg gross and/or manip- and motion, revealed decreased wrist 1981 diagnosis. Dr. ulation. Yelton made no wrist, and slight synovitis of the dorsal rheumatologist, a Dr. Watson went to metacarpal phalan- deviation of the ulnar Gray, January in December 1981 and in swelling. slight There was geal joints with report Gray’s no of Dr. is in 1982. While thumb, of the but subluxation record, he answered a residual func- physi- range retained a full of motion. stating that Wat- tional evaluation capacity positive Phalen’s cian felt Watson had a than two hours son could not sit more with bilateral test which was consistent workday that she eight-hour in an and had carpal syndrome. tunnel she during at all such a could not stand or walk motion, range a full of knee movement never period. He also found that she could popping grating, mild and the knees caused Dr. carry pounds. five indicating degenerative or arthritic lift or even some problem intrapatellar region. in the There that Watson could not use further noted slight swelling the feet. There was was grasping, pushing and simple hands for her degrees right five of fixed flexion of controls, manipula- or fine pulling of arm hip approximately with further flexion to He also determined that she tions. hips degrees. X-rays of the 95 to 100 Gray diag- reach at all. Dr. not bend or abnormalities, her failed to show but rheumatoid arthritis. nosed proxi- cystic changes hands showed judge law concluded The administrative phalanax metacarpal and areas consist- mal not arthritic condition would that Watson’s Dr. Horn’s ent with rheumatoid arthritis. engaging least preclude her in March 1981 post-operative care notes against light activity with restrictions work well, in June doing her as and described pulling pushing and movements performing a pretty well. Dr. Horn submitted gross manipulation. He found evi- and September capacity evaluation in physical that Watson’s arthritic failed to show dence could not con- 1981. He indicated that she from en- preclude work, impairment en- would heavy that she could tinue but light-work restrictions activi- sedentary work with in a gage gaging wide pulling and against climbing, pushing The administra- ty a sustained basis. movements, bending gross manipulations, that Watson could not judge added tive reaching. and packager a return to former assembler, could return to that she but orthopedist, exam- Fambrough, a collator occupation as request her former in March 1981 at ined Watson evidence, flicting level of exertion and does requires a judge did not involve the above restrictions. found the amount of restriction preclude plaintiff’s return to her for- § 404.1567(b)the Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. re- Light mer work as a collator. regulations light work as define frequently and quires lifting pounds ten pounds at a time lifting no more than sitting pushing pulling some when or lifting carrying frequent of ob- good standing walking deal of or without pounds. jects weighing up to 10 Even pushing pulling requirements. There may very though weight lifted be support is substantial evidence to the ad- little, category in this when it joba ministrative law determination that walking requires good deal of or stand- Watson could return to her former work as sitting most ing, or it involves when a collator. pulling the time with some leg of arm controls. To be considered The administrative or de *4 capable performing disabling a full or wide pain. of termines the nature of work, range you 943, have the light Gaultney Weinberger, of must 505 F.2d substantially (5th Cir.1974). ability to do all of these 945-46 This up Court will work, light activities. If someone can do hold the determination if substantial evi supports Harris, we determine that he or she can also do dence it. Fortenberry v. work, (5th Cir.1980). sedentary unless there are addi- 612 F.2d When limiting making tional factors such as loss of fine disabling determination of the dexterity inability peri- long pain, or to sit for nature of judge administrative law ods of time. recognize pain must that alone can be disa bling, if objective even there is no medical capacity Residual functional evaluations support evidence to the claimant’s testimo conflicting ability are as to Watson’s to do ny pain. Gaultney, on 505 F.2d at See light work. Dr. Horn found Watson could carry pounds occasionally lift or ten to less Some of the administrative law frequently. He noted that she could stand judge’s language suggests might he have eight- and walk less than six hours of an required objective medical evidence sup to workday hour but could sit and work for at port testimony Watson’s about the con day. a six-hour She had least moderate pain. stant restrictions on pulling disability This evaluation of has included gross manipulation and limited restrictions allega- consideration of the claimant’s in bending stooping and/or movements and pain pain tions of as can important be an reaching. findings partially These are sup- in causing factor functional loss and can ported by Dr. Yelton’s residual functional disabling particular alone be situa- capacity Although evaluation. However, tions. it is well known that contrary made a residual capaci- functional pain subjective symptom is a and not ty responsibility evaluation it was the of Thus, easily allegation measurable. the administrative judge law to resolve impairment of a severe sup- should be conflict. ported usually and should be demonstra- conflict, Resolving that the administra- by medically acceptable ble clinical and judge tive law determined that Watson laboratory diagnostic techniques and al- engage light work with restrictions legations pain weighed of should be pushing, pulling on manipula- the overall record which includes clinical tion. He found engage she could in a wide data, testimony, demeanor the hear- of work. she could treatment, ing, frequency response to not return to her former packag- work as a treatment, medications, daily use of ac- assembler, er and she could return to her tivities, motivations, credibility and resid- former work as a collator. objective The capacity. ual functional case, In a ability question findings previously restricted medical as cited here- always: is how much restriction? con- On would not be commensurate with a (indicating) top ... perform all levels this one inability to total books, other, stapled lev- only you heavier those into activity but rather exertion, omitted) (footnote books.2 els of made indicates, opinion how- the entire Review of Department of Labor describes judge con- ever, administrative position similarly. Depart- collator See find- objective medical only the not Labor, sidered Occupation- Dictionary ment of pain-killers, Watson’s use of ings § but also 1977). (4th 977.687-010 ed. Be- al Titles after June to seek treatment failure her record, as well cause all three RFCs in the by benefits (until after the denial of judge’s own find- as the administrative law daily ac- judge), her restrictions, ing indicate hearing, her to as testified at the tivities past could not return to her those that conflicted with statements collator,3 the administrative law the hear- and her demeanor at family, contrary conclusion administrative ing. We conclude evidence be re- and should objec- require improperly did not versed. findings Watson’s support tive medical testimony about

AFFIRMED.

GODBOLD, dissenting: Judge, Chief to the Secre-

I would reverse remand *5 tary. view, my administrative PASCHAL, Albert E. finding that return to judge’s Watson could Petitioner-Appellant, a collator is not work as In their Residual evidence. (RFC) Capacity questionnaires, Functional WAINWRIGHT, etc., Louie Horn, Yelton, all noted re- Drs. Respondent-Appellee. pulling move- on strictions ments; found Dr. Horn and Dr. Yelton No. 82-3088. gross manipulation and Dr.

restrictions on Appeals, States Court of United Furthermore, manipulations. Gray on fine Eleventh Circuit. found himself the administrative against “performing pushing restrictions Aug. 1984. manipu- pulling movements and inconsistent Such restrictions are lation.” finding return to that Watson could a collator. Watson described job as: table, a table papers laid around a this, know, you you would like

like 3, 4, down, 2, you number sheet lay know, got maybe to a you up until on

hundred; ta- you around the walked know, like picked you up, you it

ble and finding arguably support Appeal Vol. 2 at 24-25. 1. Record restrictions, no had Appeal Vol. Record on 2 at 43. 2. finding contrary that he did indicates Fambrough’s when he rely comment on Dr. examination, Fambrough found that In his as a her work Watson could return to concluded a full motion at this have "[t]he collator. a statement 2 ROA at 196. While such time.”