McKendrick v. Comm Social Security , 254 F. App'x 156 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-19-2007
McKendrick v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1074
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"McKendrick v. Comm Social Security" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 207.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/207
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-1074
____________
TRACEY McKENDRICK,
Appellant
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-CV-01604 )
District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
November 1, 2007
Before: RENDELL, WEIS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: November 19, 2007)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Claimant was a thirty-two year old female when an ALJ found her ineligible
for disability payments based on her diabetes, disc disease, thyroid disease, and other
1
conditions. She is a high school graduate and had worked as a nurse’s aide and cashier.
She complained particularly of pain in her right leg and low back and suffers from a disc
bulge at the L4-5 area. She is able to perform tasks such as driving, cooking, laundering,
and cleaning. She was seen and treated by several physicians. The ALJ concluded on the
basis of their records and the testimony of a vocational expert that she was capable of
sedentary work with some limitations.
In the District Court, claimant contended that the ALJ did not give enough
weight to the opinion of Dr. Gilchrist, who was treating claimant for pain management.
The Court concluded, after a review of the physicians’ records, that the ALJ properly
assessed that evidence. We agree with that conclusion. Our review of the record
persuades us that the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. See
Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999) (stating that the standard of review
for disability determinations is whether the “decision is supported by substantial
evidence.”).
The evidence of treatment and examinations by other physicians is
consistent with the finding that claimant is able to perform sedentary work subject to the
limitations set forth in the ALJ’s opinion.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
2