Hernandez v. Comm Social Security , 230 F. App'x 130 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
8-16-2007
Hernandez v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3128
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Hernandez v. Comm Social Security" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 581.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/581
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 2007 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 06-3128
REINA HERNANDEZ,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 05-cv-01717)
District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 28, 2007
Before: BARRY, FUENTES, and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: August 16, 2007)
___________
OPINION
___________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge.
Reina Hernandez appeals the District Court’s determination that the
Commissioner’s decision to deny her Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social
Security Act was based on correct legal analysis and was supported by substantial
evidence.1 Because we agree with the District Court in all respects, we will affirm.2
We write primarily for the parties who are well acquainted with the facts and so
will not recount them here. Moreover, because the District Court’s analysis of
Hernandez’s claim was thorough—in its recitation of the appropriate legal principles and
its application of those principles in this case—we adopt that reasoning. In sum, based on
our independent review of the administrative record and the briefs, we agree that (1)
objective medical evidence does not support Hernandez’s disability claim; (2) the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly exercised his discretion to evaluate, and in
some instances discount, Hernandez’s subjective complaints in light of the objective
medical evidence; and (3) the ALJ’s determination that Hernandez had the residual
functional capacity to perform medium work, including her previous work as an intake
1
Hernandez claimed that her disability arose from neck and lower back pain, asthma,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and hepatitis C. Among other things, a New
Jersey state disability examiner found Hernandez physically capable to occasionally lift
and/or carry up to 50 pounds, frequently lift and/or carry up to 25 pounds, and stand
and/or walk about 6 hours in an eight-hour workday. The medical evidence reveals that
Hernandez’s asthma is under control as is her hepatitis C. Based on the medical
evidence, the administrative law judge found that Hernandez retained the residual
functional capacity to return to her past work as a receptionist and intake worker and thus
not disabled under the Act.
2
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the Agency’s factual findings only
to determine whether the administrative record contains substantial evidence supporting
the findings. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259, 262 (3d Cir. 2000).
We exercise plenary review over all legal issues. See id.
2
worker, was supported by adequate reasoning and substantial evidence. For these
reasons, articulated more fully by the District Court, we will affirm.
3