Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-4-2004
Benitez v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-4380
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Benitez v. Comm Social Security" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 615.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/615
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-4380
PATRICIA BENITEZ,
Appellant
v.
*JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
*(Pursuant to Rule 43(c), F.R.A.P.)
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 01-cv-02262)
District Judge: Hon. Thomas I. Vanaskie
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 25, 2004
BEFORE: ROTH and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, and
SCHW ARZER,* District Judge
(Opinion Filed June 4, 2004)
* Hon. William W. Schwarzer, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
California, sitting by designation.
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Patricia Benitez suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis in her cervical
and lumbar spine, aortic valve disease, and depression. She appeals from an order of the
District Court affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
denying her claim to Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Ms. Benitez raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the ALJ complied with the
requirements of Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, n.4 (3d Cir. 2001), and Burnett v.
Commissioner, 220 F.3d 112, n.2 (3d Cir. 2000), in ruling at step three that Ms. Benitez’s
impairments did not meet or equal the listings of the regulations; and (2) whether the ALJ
improperly evaluated Ms. Benitez’s claim that her pain is disabling.
For the reasons set forth in the thorough and thoughtful opinion of the District
Court, we will affirm. The ALJ’s analysis at step three was sufficient to permit
meaningful appellate review. Similarly, we can find no fault with the methodology of the
ALJ’s evaluation of Ms. Benitez’s subjective complaints of pain. In particular, the ALJ
properly relied upon the testimony regarding Ms. Benitez’s extensive daily activities
which constituted substantial evidence supporting his conclusion that her complaints were
2
not entitled to full credence.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
3