Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-22-2004
Thimou v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-4780
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Thimou v. Comm Social Security" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 586.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/586
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 2004 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 03-4780
________________
PATRICIA THIMOU
Appellant
v.
COMM ISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 02-cv-00149)
District Judge: Honorable Mary Little Cooper
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
June 15, 2004
Before: ALITO, SMITH and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: June 22, 2004)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
Patricia Thimou appeals from an order of the District Court granting summary
judgment in favor of the defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, on Thimou’s claim
for disability benefits. Rejecting plaintiff’s contentions to the contrary, the District Court
concluded that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) properly explained the bases for
his findings at steps three and four of the Commissioner’s sequential evaluation process,
and that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision that Thimou was not disabled
within the meaning of the Act. We affirm. Because the parties are fully familiar with the
background facts and procedural history we need not set them forth, and limit our
discussion largely to our ratio decidendi.
The brief of plaintiff’s counsel, who is well versed in the Social Security Act
jurisprudence of this Court, is suffused with quotations from some of our leading cases,1
which set forth the burdens we have imposed on Social Security ALJ’s to clearly
articulate and document their findings. We take these cases seriously, of course, but find
that, in this case, the ALJ’s stewardship passes muster.
The principal focus of Thimou’s attack on the ALJ’s decision relates to his
rejection of the contention that Thimou’s condition meets the criteria of the listed
impairments. Thimou scores the ALJ’s finding that
The claimant has no impairment which meets or equals in severity the
criteria of any of the listed impairments described in Appendix 1 of the
Regulations (20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1). No treating or
examining physician has mentioned findings equivalent in severity to the
criteria of any listed impairments (Decision, pg. 2, Tr. 15).
with the barb:
To which listed impairment did the ALJ make such a comparison? The
1
E.g. Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700 (3d Cir. 1981); Kent v. Schweiker, 710 F.2d 110
(3d Cir. 1983); Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000).
2
Listing of Impairments in Appendix 1 consists of 14 chapters, over 120
separate listed impairments and even more subchapters within individual
listings, each affording a different disease process, the equivalent of any
one of which would authorize presumptive disability. To which of these
chapters, paragraphs and subparagraphs and to which of these separate
disease processes did the ALJ compare appellant’s impairments? The ALJ
did not identify the specific listing of [sic] group of listings he utilized for
comparison. The ALJ made no comparison. The ALJ did not discuss the
medical equivalence in any manner whatsoever and certainly did not
identify which elements were missing from which criteria of which listing.
This conclusory statement cannot be the subject of any meaningful judicial
review by this Court or any other Court since no Court can honestly discern
the basis for the ALJ’s finding at step three of the sequential evaluation.
The ALJ’s analysis at step three is almost a word-for-word copy of the
exact analysis rejected by this Court in the Burnett holding.
This contention, however, is mistaken, for the ALJ discussed in detail the critical
testimony bearing on Thimou’s listings claim, i.e., the testimony of plaintiff’s medical
expert, Dr. Albert G. Mylod. In fact, the ALJ devoted numerous paragraphs of his report
to an analysis of Dr. Mylod’s testimony and the records of the Overlook and Union
hospitals chronicling Thimou’s numerous visits and the condition of her knee at the time
of those visits. The ALJ accorded the testimony of Dr. Mylod “little weight,” pointing
out that, notwithstanding Dr. Mylod’s declaration that Thimou “equalled” listings 1.02
and 1.03 at various times, there were missing components of the listings at each time
which Dr. Mylod was either unable to supply, or supplied by transporting the later
findings of Dr. Nadel, beyond the covered period, backwards into that period. In short,
the rejection of Mylod’s testimony was reasoned, and the ALJ’s findings on the listings
are supported by substantial evidence.
3
There is no doubt that Thimou had, at times relevant, physical limitations,
primarily due to her knee problems. 2 Notwithstanding this, the ALJ concluded that
Thimou possessed the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work.
Although Thimou criticizes the adequacy of the ALJ’s RFC analysis under our case law,
see supra n.1, again we are satisfied that the ALJ’s discussion contains the requisite
amount of detail to permit us to determine whether the evidence was properly considered,
and that it passes muster.
The ALJ based his conclusion that Thimou could perform sedentary work on the
medical evidence in the record, including treatment notes from Overlook Hospital and Dr.
Mylod’s testimony, as well as Thimou’s testimony. In this regard, treatment notes from
Overlook Hospital during the period prior to August 1997 demonstrate no significantly
abnormal clinical findings related to Thimou’s knees, and particularly that she had no
inflammation or swelling of her knees. The ALJ also considered Thimou’s own
testimony, and in light of the entire record, concluded that Thimou had the RFC of
performing her prior job as a secretary. We are satisfied that this finding was supported
by substantial evidence.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
2
Although Thimou had other serious ailments including a (repaired) aneurysm and a
sometime seizure disorder, and also problems with her hands and an abnormal EKG, there
was no evidence that these were disabling.
4