Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-25-2005
Salerno v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-4549
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Salerno v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 350.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/350
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 04-4549
MARLENE T. SALERNO,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 03-cv-01642)
District Judge: Hon. Gustave Diamond
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 19, 2005
BEFORE: SMITH, STAPLETON and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed October 25, 2005)
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
The District Court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner in this social
security disability case. It accurately described the findings of the ALJ as follows:
After reviewing plaintiff’s medical records and hearing testimony
from plaintiff and a vocational expert, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff is
not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The ALJ found that although
the medical evidence establishes that plaintiff suffers from the severe
impairment of back pain secondary to scoliosis and mild osteoarthritis, that
impairment does not meet or equal the criteria of any of the impairments
listed at Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P.
The ALJ also found that plaintiff retains the residual functional
capacity for the full range of medium work activity. Relying on the
testimony of a vocational expert, who classified plaintiff’s past relevant
work as a waitress and cook as medium unskilled work, the ALJ concluded
that plaintiff is capable of performing her past relevant work in light of her
age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity.
Accordingly, the ALJ determined that plaintiff is not disabled within the
meaning of the Act.
App. at A-2. The Appeals Council denied review.
Petitioner’s sole argument on this appeal, as before the District Court, is that the
ALJ improperly evaluated the medical evidence in arriving at his residual functional
capacity finding. Specifically, she insists that the ALJ erred in giving more weight to an
opinion of Dr. Kumar, a non-examining state agency reviewing psychologist, than to the
opinions of plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Catena, and the consultive examiner, Dr.
Jew. For essentially the reasons set forth in the thorough opinion of the District Court, we
agree that there was no improper evaluation of the medical testimony and that the ALJ’s
residual functional capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence.
2
As the ALJ explained at some length, Dr. Catena’s assessment was inconsistent
with the clinical medical evidence of record, including his own prior records.
Accordingly, the ALJ was not required to give that assessment controlling weight.
Similarly, the restrictions found by Dr. Jew were inconsistent with the medical evidence
of record, including the results of his own physical examination of petitioner.
The ALJ found that Dr. Kumar’s assessment was entitled to greater weight
because it was more consistent with the objective medical findings. He explained this at
some length, pointing to substantial record evidence supporting his opinion.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
3