Case ID: f-appx_98/html/0926-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patricia BENITEZ, Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security
    No. 03-4380.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 25, 2004.
    Decided June 4, 2004.
    Robert A. Kurtz, Shenandoah, PA, for Appellant.
    Nicole Schmid, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee.
    Before: ROTH and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, District Judge.
    
      
       (Pursuant to Rule 43(c), F.R.A.P.).
    
    
      
       Hon. William W. Schwarzer, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION OF THE COURT

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Patricia Benitez suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis in her cervical and lumbar spine, aortic valve disease, and depression. She appeals from an order of the District Court affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim to Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383Í. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Ms. Benitez raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the ALJ complied with the requirements of Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, n. 4 (3d Cir.2001), and Burnett v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 112, n. 2 (3d Cir.2000), in ruling at step three that Ms. Benitez’s impairments did not meet or equal the listings of the regulations; and (2) whether the ALJ improperly evaluated Ms. Benitez’s claim that her pain is disabling.

For the reasons set forth in the thorough and thoughtful opinion of the District Court, we will affirm. The ALJ’s analysis at step three was sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Similarly, we can find no fault with the methodology of the ALJ’s evaluation of Ms. Benitez’s subjective complaints of pain. In particular, the ALJ properly relied upon the testimony regarding Ms. Benitez’s extensive daily activities which constituted substantial evidence supporting his conclusion that her complaints were not entitled to full credence.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.