Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-8-2005
Claiborne v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1589
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Claiborne v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 138.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/138
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 2005 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-1589
________________
STANLEY CLAIBORNE,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 03-cv-00188)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 14, 2005
Before: ROTH, FUENTES and BECKER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 8, 2005 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
BECKER, Circuit Judge.
Stanley Claiborne, who sought Social Security total disability benefits on account
of cardiovascular and back problems, appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary
judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security, who had upheld the decision of an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denying relief to Claiborne. We affirm. Because the
parties are familiar with the background facts and procedural history, we need not set
them forth, and limit our discussion to our ratio decidendi.
The ALJ found that, although Claiborne’s cardiac and back disorders were severe
impairments, he did not have an impairment that met the requirements of any impairment
listed in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P (“Listing of Impairments”). The
ALJ further found that Claiborne retained the residual functional capacity for light work,
and could return to his past relevant work. At step five of the Commissioner’s sequential
evaluation process, the ALJ considered Claiborne’s residual functional capacity for light
work, his age, education and past relevant work experience. Relying upon Medical-
Vocational Rule 202.18, set forth at 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, he
concluded that Claiborne was capable of performing other work in the national economy
and thus was not under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
The District Court concluded that the ALJ properly relied on evidence from
Claiborne’s treating physicians and properly weighed the medical evidence in the entire
record. It found that the ALJ’s explanation of his determination at step three of the
sequential evaluation (the “listings”) was adequate and supported by both the objective
medical evidence and by the finding that Claiborne’s subjective complaints of pain were
not credible to the disabling extent alleged. In sum, the District Court held that the ALJ’s
2
finding that Claiborne’s residual functional capacity was consistent with light work was
supported by the medical evidence and Claiborne’s own testimony.
Claiborne raises several issues on appeal. First and foremost, he contends that the
ALJ’s report is flawed because it failed to identify which listing he did not meet. While
the ALJ’s explication of his rationale with respect to the listings is not carefully parsed,
his discussion of the medical evidence, which is adequate, supports his conclusion about
the listings. Claiborne has not pointed to any evidence that he in fact met any listing,
much less identify which listing he may have met. At all events, Claiborne clearly does
not meet any of the relevant listings, essentially mooting the issue.
Second, Claiborne challenges the ALJ’s determination as to what light work jobs
he could perform, contending that it was impermissibly vague and that the ALJ “literally
invented a past job for the claimant.” We are unpersuaded, agreeing with the District
Court that the ALJ’s findings were sufficient, and supported by the record. More
specifically, in concluding that Claiborne could perform light work, the ALJ properly
relied upon Claiborne’s own testimony and the opinions of Dr. Arthur Millman, Dr. Pearl
Korenblit, the state agency physicians, and Dr. Donald Peyser. Claiborne remonstrates at
the ALJ’s crediting of these medical witnesses and the rejection of others, but that was
within his purview, and his decisions in this area were reasoned.1 Claiborne also asserts
1
Although Dr. Peyser was a non-examining physician, his testimony was supported by,
and consistent with, the opinion of Dr. Millman (also a cardiologist), and with the record
as a whole, which describes cardiac catheterizations, Claiborne’s visits to Dr. Millman,
and several emergency room visits for his cardiac condition.
3
that the ALJ did not recite all the probative evidence which supports or rejects his
findings. Our cases do not require an ALJ to do so; we do not grade ALJ opinions; rather
we look to see if they are supported by substantial evidence. This one is.
We do not gainsay that Claiborne was afflicted with cardiovascular and
orthopaedic problems. However, the medical evidence relied on by the ALJ was
sufficient to support the ALJ’s conclusion that Claiborne could perform work that exists
in the national economy.2
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
2
Claiborne also had an ulcer and at times may have suffered from depression, but
neither condition was developed as a possible cause of disability.
4