Spotswood v. Comm Social Security , 159 F. App'x 399 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2005 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    12-16-2005
    Spotswood v. Comm Social Security
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 04-4160
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
    Recommended Citation
    "Spotswood v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 100.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/100
    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 2005 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    NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 04-4160
    BEVERLY SPOTSWOOD,
    Appellant
    v.
    COMMISSONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
    _______________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of New Jersey
    (D.C. No. 03-cv-05515 )
    District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    on June 28, 2005
    Before: ROTH, RENDELL and BARRY, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed December 16, 2005 )
    OPINION
    ROTH, Circuit Judge:
    This appeal is from the judgment of the District Court, affirming the denial by the
    Commissioner of the Social Security of Beverly Spotswood’s claim for Social Security
    1
    Income (SSI), based on a disability. Spotswood contends that the denial is not supported
    by substantial evidence.
    We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the District Court’s final order
    awarding summary judgment to the Commissioner pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and 
    42 U.S.C. § 405
    (g). The detailed history and facts of the case are presented in the District
    Court’s opinion and will only be summarized here. See Spotswood v. Barnhart, No. 03-
    5515 (D.N.J. filed August 30, 2004).
    Our review of the District Court’s order is plenary, but we may reverse the grant of
    summary judgment to the Commissioner only if we conclude that the Administrative Law
    Judge’s (ALJ) findings were not supported by substantial evidence. See Burns v.
    Barnhart, 
    312 F.3d 113
    , 118 (3d Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is that evidence that “a
    reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Hartranft v. Apfel,
    
    181 F.3d 358
    , 360 (3d Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted).
    The disability standard requires evidence of a medically determinable impairment
    that is so severe as to prevent an individual’s performance of any substantial gainful
    activity which exists in the national economy. 
    42 U.S.C. § 423
     (d)(1)(A). Spotswood
    claims that she suffers from multiple ailments, including pain in her lower back and legs,
    a lack of concentration, and depression, which constitute a disability and thus preclude
    her from working. The ALJ determined at the hearing that although the back pain, leg
    pain, and depression qualified as severe under the regulations, they did not qualify as a
    2
    disability because they were not impairments listed in the regulations. In addition, the
    ALJ determined that, although Spotswood could no longer perform work similar to her
    prior sedentary jobs, she did retain the residual functional capacity to perform light work.
    See 
    20 C.F.R. § 416.967
    (b). Thus, Spotswood was found not disabled by the ALJ and
    she was subsequently denied benefits. That decision by the ALJ became the
    Commissioner’s final decision under 
    42 U.S.C. § 405
    (g).
    Following the denial of benefits, Spotswood filed suit in the U.S. District Court,
    seeking to overturn the ALJ’s decision. Spotswood argued that the ALJ’s decision was
    not based on substantial evidence, and specifically that the ALJ committed errors at steps
    two through five of the evaluation. The District Court addressed Spotswood’s arguments
    and found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination. Spotswood then
    filed a timely appeal.
    We conclude that the ALJ’s decision that Spotswood was not entitled to SSI
    benefits is supported by substantial evidence. In making his determination, the ALJ
    reviewed all of the medical evidence. The ALJ noted that much of the evidence dates to
    well before the alleged onset of the disability. Also, an MRI of the lower back revealed
    no evidence of herniated discs, which directly contradicted Spotswood’s testimony.
    Additionally, the ALJ found no objective evidence to support Spotswood’s claims that
    she cannot walk by herself or stand for more than fifteen minutes. Finally, the ALJ
    referred to the psychotherapist’s notes, which indicated that Spotswood had suffered from
    3
    single episode depression and that her recovery from that episode was enough for her to
    return to work. Spotswood stopped attending the therapy sessions after she indicated that
    she was returning to work on a part time basis. 
    Id.
    The ALJ’s finding that Spotswood retained the residual functional capacity for
    light work is also supported by substantial evidence and was thus proper. In addition to
    the evidence noted above, the ALJ considered Spotswood’s own account of her daily
    abilities and activities, and the findings of the state agency physicians who reviewed the
    medical records. The ALJ then concluded that Spotswood was capable of performing
    simple, routine tasks, while avoiding most contact with pollutants, co-workers, and the
    public. Once the ALJ made this determination, he properly questioned the vocational
    expert who confirmed that 90,000 of those jobs existed regionally, and over 360,000 jobs
    existed nationally.
    Because the ALJ properly considered all the evidence and because substantial
    evidence exists to support the ALJ’s decision, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of
    summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-4160

Citation Numbers: 159 F. App'x 399

Filed Date: 12/16/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023