Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-14-2004
Salerno v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-4088
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Salerno v. Comm Social Security" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 704.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/704
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-4088
LINDA ELROD SALERNO,
Appellant
v.
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
COMM ISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-01678 )
District Judge: Honorable Robert J. Cindrich
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 11, 2004
Before: NYGAARD, McKEE, and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed May 14, 2004)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
The claimant in this SSI Disability benefits case is a 54 year-old woman.
She worked in a delicatessen for a number of years until 1994 when she was discharged
1
because of a reduction in the store’s work force. She then went to South Carolina where
she worked in a cafeteria for about a year and returned to Pittsburgh and cared for her
granddaughter from 1996 to 1998.
Claimant has been diagnosed with bronchial asthma/COPD, hypertension,
hyperlipidemia, chest pains secondary to angina and chronic alcoholism. She applied for
disability benefits in February 2000. After a hearing before an ALJ, the claim was
denied. The Appeals Council vacated the unfavorable decision and remanded, essentially
for re-evaluation of the medical evidence as to whether the claimant could perform
“light” or only “sedentary” work.
A second hearing before the ALJ resulted in a denial once again. On this
occasion, a medical expert, Dr. Daniel Nackley, who had not examined the claimant but
was present during the hearing, opined that she was capable of performing “light” work.
Observing that “the claimant is not highly credible,” the ALJ also stated that the reduction
of capability to light work as stated in Dr. Nackley’s assessment, “is well supported by the
objective medical evidence and the clearly credible functional limitations.”
The Appeals Council affirmed and the claimant then filed an appeal in the
United States District Court for the W estern District of Pennsylvania.
The District Court carefully reviewed the record and its opinion discusses
the medical evidence in detail. We see no need to repeat this analysis. Our independent
review of the record leads us to agree with the assessment made by the District Court in
2
concluding that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
In her brief, the claimant suggest that this Court should adopt language in
Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 345 (4 th Cir. 1986), limiting the effect of a non-
examining physician’s report in establishing substantial evidence. We conclude that the
Smith case is not applicable to the facts of the case before us. In addition, we do not read
that opinion as being as sweeping as the claimant asserts.
We are satisfied that the District Court’s very thorough opinion correctly
decided the issues in this case. Consequently, we will affirm the judgment of the District
Court.
3