Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-12-2003
Riddle v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-2436
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Riddle v. Comm Social Security" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 115.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/115
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-2436
___________
MARK S. RIDDLE,
Appellant
v.
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
COMM ISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
District Court Judge: The Honorable William L. Standish
(D.C. Civil No. 02-cv-00527)
___________
Argued on October 24, 2003
Before: ALITO, FUENTES and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: November 12, 2003)
John G. Burt (argued)
Suite 810, Arrott Building
401 Wood Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Attorney for Appellant
Elizabeth A. Corritore (argued)
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration
P.O. Box 41777
Philadelphia, PA 19101
Attorney for Appellee
________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Mark S. Riddle appeals from a final order of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania affirming the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) to deny his claim for disability
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Riddle claims that the
District Court erred in concluding that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) findings
were supported by substantial evidence. Because we agree with the District Court that
there was substantial evidence that Riddle was capable of performing a range of sedentary
work, we will affirm. We will not detail the extensive medical and procedural history of
this case which is certainly well known to the parties.
The District Court exercised jurisdiction over Riddle’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 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
2
evidence. Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence
“does not mean a large or considerable 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. 522, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988)). “We will not set the
Commissioner’s decision aside 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 well-reasoned opinion. The District Court conducted a
comprehensive analysis of the evidence considered by the ALJ, including a summary of
medical reports from several sources dealing with Riddle’s diagnoses and treatment. The
District Court then evaluated each of the alleged errors set forth by Riddle and concluded
that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Riddle raises essentially
the same issues before this Court as he did before the District Court.
There is no dispute that Riddle can no longer perform the jobs he used to; the issue
is whether he can do any work which exists in the national economy, in light of his age,
education, work experience and residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520;
Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259, 262-63 (3d Cir. 2000). The record shows that Riddle
suffered from disc degeneration which caused him pain and bladder dysfunction, required
him to stop performing heavy labor, and necessitated his taking prescription drugs which
3
caused drowsiness. However, there is also substantial evidence in the record that
although Riddle had serious physical limitations, he was capable of performing some
sedentary work. The Functional Capacity Evaluation conducted in August 1995 revealed
that Riddle had the ability to perform at the light physical demand level on a full-time
basis. Although the evaluators noted that Riddle complained of back and leg pain, they
remarked that he demonstrated good use of body mechanics and “exhibited no pain
behaviors.” (Appendix to Brief for Appellant, at 253.) Even Riddle’s primary care
physician, William J. McGrath, who noted on more than one occasion that Riddle was
severely impaired, never actually stated that Riddle was incapable of performing any
sedentary work. We also note that, unlike the majority of social security claimants,
Riddle had three hearings before ALJs (in 1996, 1998 and 2001). Each time, he failed to
convince the presiding ALJ that he was incapable of performing any work.
We are satisfied that the record supports the ALJ’s conclusion that, although
Riddle could no longer perform his past relevant work as a farmer and heavy laborer, he
could nevertheless perform a limited range of sedentary work during the alleged closed
period, including work as a cutter/trimmer, addresser/mail sorter, and electronic
assembler, and packager. Because we agree that the ALJ’s decision was supported by
substantial evidence, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
4
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judge
5