Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-21-2003
Smith v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-3640
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Smith v. Comm Social Security" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 728.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/728
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 02-3640
___________
RAYMOND H. SMITH,
Appellant
v.
*JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security
*(Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c))
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-04340)
District Court Judge: The Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 6, 2003
Before: ROTH, BARRY, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: March 21, 2003)
________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________
1
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Raymond Smith appeals the District Court’s affirmance of the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for disability insurance benefits under 42
U.S.C. §§ 401-433. We have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Our review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported
by substantial evidence. See Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001). The
factual findings of the Commissioner must be accepted as conclusive so long as they are
supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
389, 390 (1971). “Substantial evidence” is “‘more than a mere scintilla. It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.’” Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 38
(quoting Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999)).
We have carefully considered Smith’s arguments in this appeal and find that they lack
merit. For the reasons substantially stated in the District Court’s well-reasoned and thorough
opinion, we find that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s determination that
Smith retained the residual functional capacity to perform light work and its decision to deny
Smith disability insurance benefits.1 We therefore affirm.
1
On September 29, 2002, the District Court adopted Magistrate Judge Melinson’s
Report and Recommendation, which was filed on September 11, 2002. We therefore
consider the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to be the opinion of the
District Court.
2
____________________________
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judge
3