Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-07-02975/USCOURTS-ca3-07-02975-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner Social Security
Appellee
Robert E. Miller
Appellant

Document Text:

Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., Senior District Judge for the United States *.

District Court for the Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2975

___________

ROBERT E. MILLER,

Appellant

v.

*MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY

* (Pursuant to Rule 43(c), F.R.A.P.)

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-00789)

District Judge: The Honorable William L. Standish

___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

May 20, 2008

BEFORE: SMITH and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges,

and STAFFORD, District Judge. *

Filed May 29, 2008

Case: 07-2975 Document: 00311897837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2008
2

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Robert E. Miller applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security

income. The ALJ found that Miller was not disabled under the Social Security Act 

because the Appeals Council denied his request for review, and the ALJ’s decision

became the final decision of the Commissioner. The District Court rejected Miller’s

appeal. We will affirm.

On appeal, Miller challenges the District Court's legal conclusions and the ALJ's

factual findings regarding his disability. We agree with the District Court and will adopt

its reasoning as set forth in its thorough opinion. There was substantial evidence in the

record to support the ALJ's conclusion that Miller’s abdominal tumor, appendectomy and

obesity were not severe impairments. See Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 

2001). Further, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s finding

that there was no spinal disorder resulting in the compression of a nerve root or the spinal

cord. The ALJ properly considered, discussed and weighed the relevant evidence

pertaining to Miller’s disability allegations. The ALJ examined reports from Miller’s

treating physician and medical center as well as from consultative examiners. The ALJ

Case: 07-2975 Document: 00311897837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2008
We note that Dr. Kasdan, Miller’s treating physician, opined that Miller could 1.

perform light work. The ALJ gave Miller the benefit of the doubt and found that he could

only perform sedentary work. 

 

3

discussed Miller’s history, symptoms, and treatment for each condition. Our review

shows that the ALJ accorded great weight to the opinions of the treating doctors.

Further, although Miller takes issue with a discrepancy between the Vocational

Expert's testimony and the examples of jobs the ALJ found he could perform, there is

substantial evidence to support the finding that Miller is able to perform a limited range

of sedentary work and that such work exists in the national economy. See 42 U.S.C. §§

423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B); see also Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 505-06 (3d Cir.

2004).1

Finally, the ALJ's RFC finding is also supported by substantial evidence and the

hypothetical question posed to the Vocational Expert accurately reflected Miller’s

established physical impairments. See Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 123 (3d Cir.

2002).

For the reasons set forth above, we will affirm the final order of the District Court.

Case: 07-2975 Document: 00311897837 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/29/2008
Case: 07-2975 Document: 00311897837 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/29/2008