Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-15-2005
Roberts v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3647
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Roberts v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 837.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/837
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 04-3647
____________
JEANNIE M. ROBERTS,
Appellant
v.
JOANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 03-cv-01254)
District Judge: Honorable John E. Jones, III
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
July 1, 2005
Before: NYGAARD 1 , SMITH and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 15, 2005)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
FISHER, Circuit Judge.
1
Judge Nygaard assumed Senior Judge status on July 9, 2005.
This is an appeal by Jeannie M. Roberts from the District Court’s affirmance of the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability insurance benefits
(DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). The question before us is whether
substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s final decision that Roberts was not
disabled under the Social Security Act. We affirm having concluded that substantial
evidence supports the decision. Because the parties are familiar with the background
facts and procedural history, we set forth only those facts necessary to our analysis.
Roberts suffered from a right shoulder impairment, cervical disc disease and
depression. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that those impairments
do not meet or medically equal a listed impairment, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix 1, Part A. The ALJ determined that although Roberts’s impairment prevented
her from performing her past relevant work as a packer or janitor, Roberts retained
residual functional capacity to perform a limited range of light duty work, which did not
involve performing repetitive tasks with her right upper extremity, overhead work and
which was consistent with her mild to moderate limitations in concentration and attention
due to her depression. Because Roberts was forty-nine (49) years old, constituting a
younger individual, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563 and 416.967, with limited education, an
unskilled work background and could not perform the full range of light work, the ALJ
enlisted the assistance of a vocational expert to conclude that Roberts could perform light,
unskilled work as an unarmed security guard, inspector and gate tender, all of which exist
2
in significant numbers in the national economy. These conclusions are supported by
substantial evidence.
We agree that Roberts’s impairments do not meet any of the Listings, either
individually or in combination. We also find that despite Roberts’s argument that she was
limited to sedentary work, the record evidence substantially supports the ALJ’s finding
that Roberts could engage in a wide-range of light duty work with her credible subjective
complaints. The ALJ’s findings in this regard were consistent with the objective medical
evidence.
Nor do we find merit in Roberts’s contention that the ALJ erred in classifying her
as a “younger” person given her age, forty-nine (49), for purposes of determining whether
there were a significant number of jobs in the national economy that she could perform in
light of her work restrictions, vocational factors and age. “Age” refers to chronological
age of a claimant and the extent to which it affects the claimant’s ability to adjust to other
work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(a), 416.963(a) (2004). A “younger” person is someone
under fifty (50) years of age. Id. During the relevant period, Roberts was under fifty (50)
years of age and was not within a few days or months of her fiftieth birthday to provide
her with the benefit of a “borderline” age determination under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(b) as
an individual closely approaching advanced age. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(d),
416.963(d) (2004) (defining “person closely approaching advanced age” as one who is
age fifty (50) to fifty-four (54) years old). Nor is there any authority extending the
3
benefits of a “borderline” age determination to persons like Roberts who are within
five (5) to six (6) months of their fiftieth birthday. In any event, substantial evidence,
including the unrefuted evidence provided by the vocational expert, supports the ALJ’s
conclusion that Roberts’s age was not a factor significantly limiting her vocational
adaptability.
Having considered the contentions raised by the parties and concluding that no
further discussion is required, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court that
substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s conclusion that Roberts was not
disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
4