2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
11-12-2003 

# R idd le v . C omm S o c i al S ec ur it y P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2436

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" R idd le v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 115. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/115NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 03-2436

___________ MARK S. RIDDLE, Appellant

v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

___________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the We stern D istrict of P enns ylvania Distri ct Court J udge: The Ho nora ble William L. Standish

(D.C. Civi l No. 02-cv- 00527 )

___________ Argued on October 24, 2003 Bef ore: AL ITO , FU EN TE S an d B EC KE R, Circuit Judges
. (Opinion Fi led: November 12, 2003)
John G. Burt ( argued) Suite 810, Arrott

Building 401 Wood Street Pitt sburgh, PA 15222 Attorney for Appell

ant2 Elizabet h A. Corrit ore (ar gued) Office of the Gener al Counsel Social Sec urity Adminis tration P.O. Box 41777 Philadelphia, PA 19101 Attorney for Appellee

________________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

________________________ FUEN TES, Circuit

Judge: Plaintiff Mark S. Riddl e appeals from a finalorder of t he United States Dist

rict Court for t

he Western Dist

rict of Pennsy lvania

affirmi ng the deci sion of the Co mm issione r of S ocial S ecurity (“C om missio ner”) to deny his claim for d isability insura nce benefit s under Title IIof the Soci al Securi ty Act. Riddl e clai ms that t he Distri ct Court e rred i n concludi ng that t he Administr ative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) fi ndings were support ed by s ubstantial e vidence. Because we agree with t he District Court

that there wa s substantial eviden ce that Ridd le was ca pable of p erforming a range o f sedentary work, we will af

firm. We will not det ail t he extensi ve medical a nd proceduralhist ory of this c ase wh ich is certa inly w ell kn ow n to the p artie s. The Distri ct Court e xercis ed juri sdiction over Riddl e’s re quest for review of the Commissioner’ s denialof benefit s pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Because the Dis tri ct Court’s order was a final judgment that disposed of all t he parties’ cl aims, we exercise juri sdiction over t

he inst ant appealpursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the issue of whether the Commissioner’ s denialof benefit s was support ed by s ubstantial3

evid enc e. Plummer v. Apfel , 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999). Subst antia l evide nce “does not mean a l arge or cons iderabl e amount of evide nce, but rather such rel evant evidence as a reasonabl e mind might ac cept as a dequate t o support a conclusi on.” Hartranft v. Apfel , 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999) (ci ting Pierce v. Underwood , 487 U.S. 522, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988) ). “We willnot set the Comm is si one r’ s d ec is io n a si de if it is su ppo rted by su bs ta nt ia l e vi de nc e, ev en if we would have decided t

he factualinquiry di fferently .” Hartranft , 181 F.3d at 360 (cit ations omitted). Af ter a ca reful re view of the record and th e partie s’ argu men ts, we find n o bas is for dis turbi ng the Dist

rict Court’s wel l-r easoned opini on. The District Court conduct ed a comprehensive analy sis of t he evidence c onsider ed by t he ALJ, incl uding a summaryof medical r eports from severalsources de aling wit h Riddle’s diagnoses and treatment. The Distri ct Court t

hen evaluated each of the a llege d error s set f orth byRiddle and concluded that the AL J’s dec ision w as sup ported by subs tantial ev idenc e. Rid dle raise s essen tially the s am e issu es b efo re th is C our t as h e did bef ore the D istrict Co urt. There is no di spute t

hat Riddl e can no longer perform the jobs he use d to; t he issue is whether

he can do any work which exist s in the nati onal economy , in l ight of hi s age, educati on, work experi ence and res idual f unctiona l capaci ty . 20 C.F. R. § 404.1520; Sykes v. Apfel , 228 F .3d 25 9, 262 -63 (3 d C ir. 2000 ). The record show s that R iddle suffered fr om disc degener ation whic h caused him pai n and bladder dysf unction, requir ed him to st op performing he avy l abor, and ne cessi tate d his t aking pres cription drugs whic h4

caused drowsi ness. However, there is al so subst antia l evide nce in the record t hat al th oug h Ri ddl e ha d se ri ous phy si calli mit at io ns, he wa s c apabl e of performin g so me sedentary work. The FunctionalCapacityEvaluati on conducted i n August 1995 reveal ed th atRid dl e ha d t he abi li tyto perform at th e l ig htphy si caldema nd l eve l o n a f ul l- ti me basis. Although the e valuat ors note d that Ri ddle complai ned of back and leg pain, t hey
rema rked that he dem onstra ted go od u se of bod y mech anics a nd “e xhib ited no pain behav iors.” (Appe ndix to B rief for A ppellant, at 253.) E ven R iddle’s primary care physi cian, Willi am J. McGrath, who noted on more t han one occasi on that Ri ddle was severel y i mpaired, never actually stat ed that

Riddle was inc apable of performing any sedentary work. We also note that, unlike the majority of social security clai mants, Ridd le had three h earing s bef ore A LJs (in 199 6, 199 8 and 200 1). Ea ch tim e, he f ailed to
con vin ce th e pr esid ing AL J tha t he w as in cap able of p erfo rmin g an y wo rk. We are sati sfied t

hat the record s upports t he ALJ’s conclus ion that , al though Riddle coul d no longer perform his pas t rel evant work as a farmer and heavylaborer , he could neverthele ss perform a limited range of sede ntarywork during the all eged close d period , includ ing w ork a s a cu tter/trimm er, add resser/m ail sorter, a nd ele ctronic assembler , and packager . Because we agree that t he ALJ’s decis ion was supported by sub stan tial ev iden ce, w e w ill aff irm t he ju dgm ent o f the Dis trict C our t.5

TO THE CLERK OF THE CO URT: Kindly file the fore going Opinion.

/s/ Jul io M. Fuentes Circuit Judge