Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-14-2004
Schmidt v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-3490
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Schmidt v. Comm Social Security" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 836.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/836
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-3490
CARLOS SCHMIDT,
Appellant
v.
COMM ISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(Dist. Court. No. 01-cv-01901)
District Court Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 2, 2004
Before: ALITO, FISHER and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed April 14, 2004)
OPINION OF THE COURT
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
Because we write for the parties only, the background of the case is not set forth.
Carlos Schmidt appeals from an order of the district court granting summary judgment for
the Commissioner of Social Security and affirming the denial of his application for Social
Security benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”). See 42
U.S.C. §§ 401-434, 1381-1383(f). Schmidt argues that the Commissioner’s determination
is not supported by substantial evidence, that the Administrative Law Judge improperly
rejected the opinion of the treating physician even though it was uncontradicted and did
not adequately analyze Appellant’s subjective complaints of pain according to the
mandated protocol by the Commissioner.
We must uphold the Commissioner’s factual findings if they are supported by
substantial evidence in the record. Hartranft v. Apfel 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999).
Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate” to support a conclusion. Plummer v. Apfel,
186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).
We conclude that the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. The
ALJ determined that Appellant, who was 34 at the time of the ALJ hearing, retained the
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform work except for lifting and carrying more
than ten pounds frequently and more than twenty pounds occasionally; sitting more than
six hours in an eight hour day; and standing/walking more than six hours in an eight hour
day. Based on an exertional capacity for light work, and the appellant’s age, education
and work experience, the relevant medical-vocational rules directed a conclusion of “not
disabled.” See 20 C.F.R. § 416.969; 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2.
Regarding the ALJ’s determination of Schmidt’s RFC for a full range of light
2
work, Schmidt argues that the assessment made by Dr. Bates, his treating physician,
should have been given controlling weight over that of Dr. Danza, a non-treating
physician from the State Disability Service. In reviewing the record, the district court
noted that the record “is devoid of any objective medical evidence of clinical or
laboratory tests that support Dr. Bates’ assessment of Schmidt’s RFC.” What’s more, Dr.
Bates’ assessment is inconsistent with the medical evidence that is contained in the
record.
In determining that Schmidt’s subjective complaints were “not fully credible,” the
ALJ first considered the medical evidence in the record as a whole. Based on the reports
from Drs. Carr, Gram and Bates and x-rays, the ALJ concluded that this medical evidence
was “not alone so serious as to warrant greater functional limitations” than was needed to
perform light work. The evidence in the record reported no signs of joint swellings or
deformity, no decrease in muscle strength and no muscle wasting. Both Schmidt and his
wife testified that Schmidt was taking his medication as prescribed. This testimony
contradicted the reports of several physicians, however, who when referring to Schmidt’s
diabetes, noted it was poorly controlled and that Schmidt had a history of poor
compliance. It is significant that the ALJ considered Schmidt’s prior work record in
determining the credibility of his complaints. Although Schmidt was only 34 years of
age, he testified that his last job was eight years previous as a mechanic which he held for
a two week period. The ALJ properly determined that this testimony could not enhance
3
the credibility of Schmidt’s complaints.
We have considered all of the contentions raised by the parties and conclude that
no further discussion is necessary.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
4