Gaud v. Comm Social Security , 60 F. App'x 411 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2003 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    3-26-2003
    Gaud v. Comm Social Security
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket 02-3753
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
    Recommended Citation
    "Gaud v. Comm Social Security" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 712.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/712
    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 2003 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    NOT PRECEDENTIAL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: 02-3753
    LISSETTE GAUD,
    Appellant
    v.
    COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    District Court Judge: The Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
    (D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-05883)
    Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
    March 7, 2003
    Before: ROTH, BARRY, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion Filed: March 26, 2003)
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
    Appellant Lissette Gaud ("Gaud") appeals a final order of the United States
    District Court for the District of New Jersey affirming the decision of the Commissioner
    of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") to deny her application for
    disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Gaud claims that
    the District Court erred in concluding that the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ's")
    findings were supported by substantial evidence.
    The District Court exercised jurisdiction over Gaud's request for review of the
    Commissioner's denial of benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Because the District
    Court's Order was a final judgment that disposed of all of the Parties' claims, we exercise
    jurisdiction over the instant appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.
    We review de novo the issue of whether the Commissioner's denial of benefits was
    supported by substantial evidence. See Plummer v. Apfel, 
    186 F.3d 422
    , 427 (3d Cir.
    1999) (stating that "[t]he role of this Court is identical to that of the District Court,
    namely to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's
    decision.") Substantial evidence "does not mean a large or significant amount of
    evidence, but rather such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
    adequate to support a conclusion." Hartranft v. Apfel, 
    181 F.3d 358
    , 360 (3d Cir. 1999)
    (citing Pierce v. Underwood, 
    487 U.S. 552
    , 565 (1988)). "We will not set aside the
    Commissioner's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if we would have
    decided the factual inquiry differently." Hartranft, 
    181 F.3d at 360
     (citations omitted).
    After a careful review of the record and the Parties' arguments, we find no basis
    for disturbing the District Court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion. The District
    Court conducted a comprehensive analysis of the evidence considered by the ALJ,
    including a summary of medical reports from ten sources dealing with Gaud's diagnoses
    and treatment. The District Court then evaluated each of the alleged errors set forth by
    Gaud in challenging the ALJ's decision and concluded that the ALJ's decision was
    supported by substantial evidence. Gaud raises essentially the same issues before this
    Court as she did before the District Court. Because we agree that the ALJ's decision was
    supported by substantial evidence, we will affirm the judgment for substantially the same
    reasons set forth in the record.
    _____________________________
    TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
    Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
    /s/ Julio M. Fuentes
    Circuit Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-3753

Citation Numbers: 60 F. App'x 411

Filed Date: 3/26/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023