Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-07-04157/USCOURTS-ca3-07-04157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-4157

___________

ANNIE B. TYMINSKA,

 Appellant

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 06-cv-01530)

District Judge: Honorable Edwin M. Kosik

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 28, 2008

Before: AMBRO, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: August 12, 2008)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Annie B. Tyminska appeals the District Court’s decision affirming the

Commissioner’s denial of her request for benefits. We will affirm.

Case: 07-4157 Document: 00312011879 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2008
The ALJ determined that Tyminska’s diabetes mellitus, asthma and hypertension 1

were not disabling.

2

In May 2004, Tyminska filed applications for disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income. Tyminska alleged disability because of an affective

disorder, diabetes mellitus, asthma and hypertension. After Tyminska’s applications were

denied, she received a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ

found that Jones was not disabled under the Social Security Act and the Appeals Council

denied her request for review.

The ALJ found that Tyminska’s depressive disorder restricted her ability to

perform basic work functions. At the final step of the five-step sequential evaluation, the 1

ALJ determined that Tyminska retained the residual functional capacity to perform work

at the medium exertional level. See Ramirez v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d 546, 550-51 (3d Cir.

2004) (describing 5-step process). Finally, the ALJ found that while Tyminska was

incapable of performing her past relevant work, she was capable of making an adjustment

to work which exists in significant numbers in the national and regional economy. 

Tyminska sought review of the ALJ’s decision in the District Court. The District Court

adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation over Tyminska’s objections

and affirmed the ALJ’s decision.

The District Court had jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), which

incorporates 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) by reference. We have jurisdiction over Tyminska’s

Case: 07-4157 Document: 00312011879 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2008
3

appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of the District Court’s legal

conclusions. Allen v. Barnhart, 417 F.3d 396, 398 (3d Cir. 2005). We review the factual

findings in the ALJ’s decision for substantial evidence. Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d

546, 552 (3d Cir. 2005).

We agree with the District Court and will adopt its reasoning. The ALJ properly

considered, discussed and weighed the relevant evidence pertaining to Tyminska’s

disability allegations. See Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 42 (3d Cir. 2001). 

Consistent with the regulations, the ALJ determined that while Tyminska had a

psychological impairment, her subjective complaints of disabling psychological

symptoms were not fully credible in light of the medical evidence. See Hartranft v.

Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999).

The District Court provided Tyminska with a full and fair opportunity to present

her case and properly reviewed her claims under the substantial evidence standard. 

Further, despite Tyminska’s arguments to the contrary, the District Court did not err in

dismissing the case before she had an opportunity to counter the defendant’s response to

her objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Tyminska also

objects to the defendant “filing redacted evidence” in violation of the rules of evidence. 

This argument is plainly meritless. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(b) (“Evidence may be received at

any hearing before the Commissioner of Social Security even though inadmissible under

rules of evidence applicable to court procedure.”).

Case: 07-4157 Document: 00312011879 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/12/2008
To the extent that Tyminska attempts to introduce new evidence on appeal in this 2

Court, we remind her that “[b]ecause this evidence was not before the ALJ, it cannot be

used to argue that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by ‘substantial evidence.’” Jones

v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d, 125, 128 (3d Cir. 1991).

4

For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.2

Case: 07-4157 Document: 00312011879 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/12/2008