Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-26-2004
Vitatoe v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-3812
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Vitatoe v. Comm Social Security" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 771.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/771
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-3812
DAVID L. VITATOE,
Appellant
v.
JO ANNE BARNHART,
Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil No. 01-cv-00831)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 16, 2004
Before: RENDELL, STAPLETON and LAY*, Circuit Judges.
(Filed April 26, 2004)
OPINION OF THE COURT
*Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
LAY, Circuit Judge.
David L. Vitatoe appeals from an order of the district court affirming the decision
of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claim for disability insurance benefits
under Title II of the Social Security Act. Because we conclude that substantial evidence
on the record as a whole supports the Commissioner’s decision, we will affirm.
BACKGROUND
Vitatoe applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income
on September 30, 1999, alleging an inability to work beginning September 15, 1999.
Vitatoe’s application for benefits was denied initially and upon reconsideration. He then
requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), which was held on
November 15, 2000.
Vitatoe suffers from several ailments, including hypertension, asthma, and diabetes
mellitus, and has been seen by several physicians for his medical conditions. At the
hearing, Vitatoe testified that he could not do any lifting, but upon questioning from the
ALJ, he admitted he could lift a gallon of milk. He testified that he suffered frequent
asthma attacks with shortness of breath and required nebulizer treatments of fifteen to
twenty minutes three or four times per day. Vitatoe testified his diabetes caused him pain
in his eyes, fingers, and lower back, and severe pain in his legs, which limited his walking
to ten to fifteen minutes per day. He claimed he was bedridden for most of the day.
2
Vitatoe had been diagnosed as having peripheral neuropathy related to diabetes
mellitus and was prescribed pain medication for treatment. On December 19, 2000,
Vitatoe had a consultative exam with Dr. Yong Kim. Vitatoe told Dr. Kim he had been to
the emergency room five or six times in the last year for his asthma, but no records of
these visits were ever provided by Vitatoe in support of his application for benefits.
Vitatoe also told Dr. Kim that he could walk for one block, stand for thirty minutes, and
lift twenty or thirty pounds. Vitatoe complained of having a cough, shortness of breath,
and occasional abdominal pain. Dr. Kim noted that Vitatoe had normal range of motion
and strength in his upper and lower extremities but decreased sensation in the toes of both
feet.
At the request of the ALJ, the medical evidence in Vitatoe’s case was reviewed by
Dr. Charles Cooke, an internist and medical expert. Dr. Cooke opined that while Vitatoe
had evidence of severe asthma and diabetes mellitus with peripheral neuropathy, he still
was able to lift up to twenty pounds frequently and fifty pounds occasionally, and had no
limitations on his ability to stand, walk, sit, or use his upper and lower extremities for
pushing and pulling.
Vitatoe submitted written reports concerning his disability in January and February
of 2000, which indicated that he experienced pain in his legs and sometimes found it
difficult to breathe. However, he stated he could drive to doctor appointments, drive his
son to school, take out the trash, mow the grass once every two weeks, shop, and fish five
3
or six times a year. In March of 2000, Vitatoe submitted a written report that indicated he
could no longer engage in these activities or any other household chores.
The ALJ found that Vitatoe suffered from severe impairments, which were not
severe enough to meet or medically equal a listed impairment. The ALJ also found that
Vitatoe was not fully credible as to the frequency and severity of his symptoms or the
extent of his functional limitations. He further found that Vitatoe had the residual
functional capacity to perform sedentary work. Although the ALJ found that Vitatoe
could not perform his past relevant work, he found there were significant jobs in the
regional and national economy that Vitatoe could perform. On this basis, the ALJ found
that Vitatoe was not disabled.
Vitatoe requested review of the ALJ’s decision by the Appeals Council. The
Appeals Council denied his request, thereby making the ALJ’s decision the final decision
of the Commissioner. Vitatoe then filed suit in district court. On July 10, 2003, the
district court granted the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, concluding
substantial evidence on the record as a whole supported the Commissioner’s finding that
Vitatoe was not eligible for benefits. Vitatoe now appeals.
DECISION
On appeal, Vitatoe takes issue with the ALJ’s finding that he was not fully credible
as to the frequency and severity of his symptoms or the extent of his functional
4
limitations, and he argues the ALJ’s finding of non-disability was based on a rejection of
Vitatoe’s subjective complaints. An ALJ must give an applicant’s subjective complaints
serious consideration and make specific findings of fact concerning his credibility. See
Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 129 (3d Cir. 2002). We conclude the ALJ fulfilled each
of these requirements.
Our review of the record convinces us that the ALJ did not reject Vitatoe’s
subjective complaints entirely but gave them serious consideration and evaluated them in
the context of all the evidence. Although evidence was presented that Vitatoe had the
capacity to lift over twenty pounds, had no limitations on his ability to stand, walk, or sit,
and retained the capacity for work at a medium level, the ALJ found that Vitatoe retained
the residual functional capacity to sit for six hours in an eight-hour day, stand and walk
two hours, and lift weights of up to ten pounds frequently. The ALJ also found that
Vitatoe’s asthma limited his tasks to those that do not involve exposure to air pollution
and other respiratory irritants. Furthermore, the ALJ found that Vitatoe had the capacity
to perform only sedentary work, which involves primarily sitting and lifting no more than
ten pounds. In our view, these findings clearly indicate the ALJ considered and partially
credited Vitatoe’s subjective complaints of pain, diminished capacity for work, and other
symptoms. In any event, these findings certainly refute Vitatoe’s contention that the ALJ
based his non-disability finding on a rejection of Vitatoe’s subjective complaints.
The record also supports the ALJ’s credibility finding. The ALJ specifically
5
pointed out inconsistencies between Vitatoe’s testimony and his written statements
concerning his ability to engage in various activities. For example, Vitatoe testified that
he could not perform any household chores or yard work, but his written statements
indicate that he could take out the trash and mow the grass. The ALJ also pointed out
inconsistencies in Vitatoe’s statements concerning his lifting ability. Vitatoe initially
testified that he could not do any lifting but later conceded that he could lift a gallon of
milk. One month later, he told Dr. Kim that he could lift between twenty and thirty
pounds of weight. The ALJ also pointed out that Vitatoe’s testimony concerning frequent
trips to the emergency room for his asthma was not supported by any records of such
visits.
Also important to the ALJ’s credibility determination was the lack of objective
medical evidence to support Vitatoe’s subjective complaints. “Allegations of pain and
other subjective symptoms must be supported by objective medical evidence.” Hartranft
v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. The ALJ cited
specific instances where Vitatoe’s subjective complaints were not supported by objective
medical evidence. For example, Dr. Kim found no impairment of Vitatoe’s gait, muscle
strength, or range of motion, and another of Vitatoe’s treating physicians reported that
Vitatoe had no limb ataxia and had normal muscle mass and tone except for mild
weakness and loss of sensation in the lower extremities. As the district court noted, none
of Vitatoe’s treating physicians opined that he had any disabling functional limitations.
6
Considering the objective medical evidence, the opinions of Vitatoe’s treating
physicians, and Vitatoe’s own testimony and written statements, we conclude the ALJ’s
finding that Vitatoe’s allegations of pain and other subjective symptoms were not entirely
credible is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Moreover, we
conclude there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the ALJ’s
conclusion that Vitatoe was not disabled.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we will affirm the order of the district
court upholding the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits in this case.
7