Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-18-2004
Crosby v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-4018
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Crosby v. Comm Social Security" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 694.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/694
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-4018
___________
STEPHANIE CROSBY,
Appellant
v.
JO ANN B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
___________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civil No. 02-cv-02103)
District Judge: The Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 12, 2004
BEFORE: NYGAARD, M cKEE, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed May 18, 2004)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Stephanie Crosby appeals from an order entered in the District
Court affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Commissioner
had denied Crosby’s application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the
Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. We will affirm.
I.
Because we write solely for the benefit of the parties, we recount the facts
only as they pertain to our analysis. Crosby is a 42-year-old female with a Bachelor’s
Degree in Interior Design and relevant work experience as an interior designer and the
principal of a design firm. She applied for disability benefits, alleging that her chronic
fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, among other things, caused her to be unable to work.
Crosby’s application for benefits was denied, and she subsequently
presented her claims in a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. After hearing
testimony from Crosby and a vocational expert and reviewing reports and records from
several doctors, the ALJ concluded that Crosby was not entitled to disability benefits.
Though Crosby was not able to return to her past work, the ALJ stated that considering
her age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, Crosby was
2
capable of making a successful adjustment to work that existed in significant numbers in
the national economy.
The Appeals Council denied Crosby’s request to review the ALJ’s decision,
and Crosby sought review in the District Court. The Court granted the Commissioner’s
motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed.
II.
The District Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and
we have jurisdiction on appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We have previously set forth our standard of review in cases involving an
appeal from the denial of disability benefits. We have instructed:
The role of this Court is identical to that of the District Court,
namely to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support
the Commissioner’s decision. The Court is bound by the ALJ’s
findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence in the
record. Substantial evidence has been defined as ‘more than a mere
scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate.’
Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d
900, 901 (3d Cir. 1995)) (internal citations omitted). Under this deferential standard of
review, all of Crosby’s arguments fail.
Crosby first argues that the ALJ committed error by rejecting Dr. Huha’s
opinion. Even if the ALJ incorrectly concluded that Crosby was referred by counsel to
Dr. Huha, there is still substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision. Dr. Huha was
3
not a “treating physician” whose opinion would be entitled to deference. See 20 C.F.R. §
404.1502. Dr. Huha’s opinion derived from tests he conducted on Crosby in close
temporal proximity to the hearing before the ALJ, and he provided no “treatment” for her
condition.
Crosby next asserts that the ALJ erred by finding that her mental problems
and sleep apnea were not severe impairments. As the District Court concluded, however,
Crosby did not meet her burden of proving that either impairment, or the impairments
taken as a whole, is more than slight.
Crosby next argues that the ALJ did not adequately consider the evidence
from Dr. Campbell, who was a treating physician. Crosby asserts that the ALJ’s opinion
should have discussed and given deference to the portions of Dr. Campbell’s report that
say Crosby was unable to perform any work, even sedentary work. While Crosby is
correct that an ALJ cannot reject evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason,
Plummer, 186 F.3d at 429, in this case the ALJ did not reject, explicitly or implicitly, the
proffered evidence. The ALJ merely afforded Dr. Campbell’s opinion less than
controlling weight, because the opinion was contradicted by other doctors and itself had
portions both supporting and undermining Crosby’s claim.
Crosby also argues that the ALJ placed too much emphasis on Dr.
Gallagher’s statements that her conditions improved with treatment. There is nothing in
4
the record, however, to indicate that the weight assigned to Dr. Gallagher’s statements
was improper.
Finally, Crosby contends that it was error for the ALJ to reject her fiance’s
affidavit detailing her daily physical limitations. We need not dwell on this issue, because
any error, if present, was harmless. The fiance’s description of Crosby’s limitations
mirrored her own description, which the ALJ considered.
III.
For the reasons set forth, we will affirm the District Court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security.