Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-07-03902/USCOURTS-ca3-07-03902-0/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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-3902

___________

REESA ADAMS,

 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 No. 06-cv-01427)

District Judge: The Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose

___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 23, 2008

Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: May 29, 2008)

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

Case: 07-3902 Document: 00311897587 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2008
2

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Reesa Adams appeals from the decision of the District Court affirming the

Commissioner’s denial of her claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the

Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. Because our opinion is wholly without

precedential value, and because the parties and the District Court are familiar with its

operative facts, we offer only an abbreviated recitation to explain why we will affirm the

decision of the District Court.

Adams did not dispute the ALJ’s findings, adopted by the Commissioner, with

regard to her physical impairments. Rather, she argued that the ALJ erred in denying her

claim of mental impairment. We agree with the District Court that the decision adopted

by the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence.

In the decision adopted by the Commissioner, it was recognized that Adams had a

mental impairment. Nonetheless, upon engaging the required sequential evaluation of the

evidence (20 C.F.R. §404.1520), it was determined that Adams’ impairment did not limit

her basic activities or work, and only slightly limited her in social function, concentration,

and persistent activity. See Petition of Sullivan, 904 F.2d 826, 845 (3d Cir. 1990). 

Additionally, it was noted that Adams did not suffer any episodes of prolonged

decompensation related to her mental condition. These factual findings reasonably

supported the overall conclusion that Adams’ mental impairments did not significantly

limit her ability to perform basic work activities over a twelve-month period, and that her

Case: 07-3902 Document: 00311897587 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2008
impairment was therefore not “severe,” as would be necessary to support a disability

claim. See Newell v. Comm’r of Social Security, 347 F.3d 541 (3d Cir. 2003). 

For all of these reasons, we will affirm the decision of the District Court. 

3

Case: 07-3902 Document: 00311897587 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/29/2008