Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-29-2005
Gifford v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2308
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Gifford v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1292.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1292
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 04-2308
JUDITH C. GIFFORD,
Appellant
v.
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
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-00243E
(Honorable Thomas M. Hardiman)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 24, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, RENDELL and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed April 29, 2005 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
SCIRICA, Chief Judge.
Petitioner Judith Gifford appeals the District Court’s order granting summary
judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security. The order affirmed the
Commissioner’s decision to deny petitioner’s application for Disability Insurance
Benefits and Widow’s Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security
Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433 (2004).
I.
A. Factual Background
Judith Gifford was born on July 20, 1945, and was fifty years old on the last day
she qualified for disability benefits. She is a high school graduate who worked as a
laundry room attendant and an aide in an institution for mentally retarded individuals.
Gifford claims that she suffers from several ailments including degenerative joint disease
of the right foot and ankle, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes,
carpal tunnel, and depression. Gifford has a history of treatment for mental illness
precipitated by the deaths of her father in 1979 and her husband in 1989.
Gifford applied for disability benefits in February 1999. Her initial application for
benefits was denied. Gifford was granted a hearing before an administrative law judge
who concluded that Gifford was not sufficiently disabled during the period in question
and as such, denied her application. Gifford appealed to the Appeals Council who denied
her request. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2004), the ALJ’s decision became final. The
2
district court denied Gifford’s petition for review granting summary judgment for the
Commissioner.
II.
We exercise jurisdiction over the District Court’s grant of summary judgment
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s decision to grant summary
judgment de novo, but we exercise limited review and use a substantial evidence standard
to review a Commissioner’s final denial of benefits. In Morales v. Apfel, we defined
substantial evidence as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” 225 F.3d 310, 316 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Plummer v.
Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 422 (3d Cir. 1999)). However, we have the “responsibility to
scrutinize the entire record and to reverse or remand if the [Commissioner]’s decision is
not supported by substantial evidence.” Morales, 225 F.3d at 317 (quoting Smith v.
Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 970 (3d Cir. 1981)).
III.
To be eligible for disability benefits, a claimant has the burden to demonstrate that
he or she is “unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any
medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in
death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less
than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(1)(A) (2004). Commissioners must evaluate a
claimant’s disability determination using “a five-step sequential evaluation process”
3
delineated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2005). The five step inquiry begins with an
examination of the claimant’s present work history. Id. If the claimant is currently
engaged in substantial gainful activity, then she is not disabled. Id. If the claimant is not
engaged in such activity, then the Commissioner must examine submitted medical
evidence to determine if the claimant suffers from a severe impairment. Id. If the
Commissioner finds that the claimant suffers from severe impairment, then the
Commissioner must determine whether the impairment is contained or equivalent to one
in the list of impairments in 20 C.F.R. § 404, subpt. P, app. 1 (2004). If the claimant’s
disability is on the list or is equivalent to a disability on the list, she will be found
disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2005). If the claimant’s disability does not meet or equal
one on the list, then the Commissioner must consider whether the claimant could return to
her past relevant work in light of the severe impairment. Id. If the claimant cannot return
to previous employment, the Commissioner must assess whether based on the claimant’s
“age, education, and work experience” and residual functional capacity,1 she can engage
in other work available in the national economy. Id. The claimant has the burden to
show that she cannot return to her past work experience as a result of her physical and/or
mental impairment. Morales, 225 F.3d at 316.
1
Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2005), “residual functional capacity” is defined
as any work one may continue to perform in spite of physical or mental impairments and
related symptoms.
4
If there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s
findings, we are bound by such determination. Id. Evidence is not substantial if the
Commissioner failed to consider all relevant evidence or failed to resolve conflicts
created by counter-veiling evidence or overwhelmed by other evidence, particularly that
of a treating physician. Id. In all disability determinations, evidence offered by a treating
physician must be accorded great weight. Id. at 317. An ALJ is allowed to reject a
treating physician’s conclusions so long as the rejection is based on other medical
evidence, not on personal inferences or speculation. Id. at 317-18. The ALJ must
consider multiple impairments in combination if none alone qualifies as a listed
impairment or its equivalent. Burnett v. Comm’r, 220 F.3d 112, 122 (3d Cir. 2000).
IV.
For the period of time relevant to this inquiry, there is substantial evidence to
support the findings of the ALJ, who conducted the requisite five-step analysis and
determined that at step four, Gifford, in spite of her many ailments, retained sufficient
residual functional capacity during the applicable time period and was not disabled under
the statute. Alternatively, the ALJ conducted a step five inquiry by presenting a
vocational expert with a hypothetical person similarly situated to Gifford based on her
physical and mental restrictions during the applicable eligibility period. The vocational
expert concluded that a person with Gifford’s combination of impairments could find
work in the national economy as a credentials checker or a surveillance system monitor.
5
The ALJ examined and considered the diagnoses and treatment recommendations
of the relevant health care providers, including the determination of Gifford’s treating
physician, and concluded that Gifford suffered a long history of right foot and ankle
injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, obesity, and
mild depression. Considering the ample medical documentation and recommendations
for sedentary work, the ALJ agreed that during all relevant times, Gifford was capable of
doing light work similar to her work in the laundry room.
Furthermore, based on the record, the ALJ concluded that Gifford only ceased
working as a consequence of a union-related issue. Gifford also claimed that a shoulder
injury prevented her from returning to work as a laundry attendant, but the ALJ correctly
found that the shoulder injury occurred after April 30, 1996, the conclusion of the
relevant time period. Finally, the ALJ properly accorded little weight to the ex post facto
opinion of a psychologist given three years after the benefits period ended. An evaluation
three years later is not determinative on what Gifford was capable of doing during the
applicable benefits period, especially in light of the numerous opinions of other
physicians, both during and after the relevant period, that Gifford was capable sedentary
employment.
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s determination on
Gifford’s mental impairments and obesity. As to Gifford’s mental health condition, the
ALJ found that her medical records and testimony support a history of mental illness and
6
for a short time, she was successfully treated with Prozac for mild depression. As to
severe mental impairment, however, speculation characterizing Gifford’s depression as
debilitating during the applicable time period does not sufficiently establish a severe
disability. As to Gifford’s weight, the ALJ considered Gifford’s obesity in combination
with her other impairments and concluded that based on the medical evidence offered,
Gifford’s obesity did not eliminate the residual functional capacity.
Finally, the ALJ is not bound by the determination of the Pennsylvania’s Workers’
Compensation Bureau and the Pennsylvania State Employees’ Disability Retirement
Program. Under 20 C.F.R. Section 404.1504 (2005), the determinations of other
government or non-governmental agencies are not binding on social security benefits
decisions. Nonetheless, the ALJ thoroughly considered the medical evidence provided by
the Pennsylvania State Employee’s Retirement System in reaching the conclusion that
Gifford was not eligible for disability benefits during the relevant time periods.
V.
For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
7