2004 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 5-18-2004 

# C r o sb y v . C omm S o c i al S ec ur ity 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 . 03-4018

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

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 2004 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 . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C r os b y v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 694. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/694NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 03-4018

___________ STEP HANIE CROSBY, Appellant
v. JO ANN B. BARNHART, COMM ISSI ONER OF SOC IAL SECUR IT Y ADMINI STRAT ION

___________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE WE STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(D.C. Civi l No. 02-cv- 02103) District J udge: The H onorable Donetta W. A mbrose

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

May 12, 2004
BE FO RE : NY GA AR D, M cK EE , and W EIS , Circu it Judges .

(Fil ed May 18, 2004)

___________2 OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge .

Appellant

StephanieCrosby appeals from an order ent ered in t he District Court affi rming the de cisi on of the Commissi oner of Socia l Securi ty . The Commissioner had denied Crosby ’s appl ication for di sabil ity insurance benefit s under Title IIof the Soc ia l S ecu ri tyAct , 4 2 U. S. C. § § 40 1- 433 . We wil l a ffirm. I. Bec ause we write s olely for th e ben efit of the pa rties, we recou nt the f acts only as they pertain to our analysis. Crosby is a 42-year-old fe male w ith a Bach elor’s Degree in Interior

Design and rel evant work experience as an inte rior designer and the princip al of a desig n firm . She a pplied for d isability ben efits, alleg ing tha t her ch ronic fatig ue s yndro me and fibr om yalgia , am ong oth er th ing s, ca use d he r to b e un able to w ork .

Cro sby’s app lication f or be nefits w as de nied, a nd sh e sub sequ ently presented her cl aims in a he aring bef ore an Administ

rati ve Law Judge. After hearing testimony from Crosby and a vocationalexpert and reviewing reports and records from
sev eral d octo rs, the AL J co nclu ded that C rosb y wa s no t enti tled t o di sab ility ben efits . Though Crosby was not able t o return to her pas t work, t he ALJ stated t

hat consi dering her age, educati on, work experi ence, and residualfuncti onal capaci ty , Crosbywas3

capa ble of mak ing a s ucce ssful a djustm ent to w ork th at existe d in sig nifica nt nu mb ers in the n ation al ec ono my.

The Appeals Council de nied Crosby ’s reque st t o review theALJ’s decisi on, and C rosby sought rev iew in the D istrict Court. The C ourt granted th e Com missioner’s motion for s ummary judgment and this appeal fol lowed.

II. The Distri ct Court e xercis ed juri sdiction pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 405(g) and
we hav e jur isdic tion on a ppe al pu rsua nt to 28 U .S.C . § 12 91.

We have previousl y se t fort h our standard of revi ew in cases i nvolving an appeal fr om the denialof disabi lit y benefi ts. We have instructed: The role of this C ourt is id entica l to that o f the D istrict Co urt, name ly to determine w hether there is sub stantial evidence to su pport the Com missioner’s de cision. The C ourt is boun d by the AL J’s findings of fact i f theyare supported bysubstant ial e vidence i n the record. Sub stantial evidence h as been d efined as ‘m ore than a m ere scintill a. It

means such rel evant evi dence as a r easonablemind mig ht ac cep t as a deq uate .’ Plummer v. Apfel , 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Ven tura v . Shala la , 55 F.3d 900, 901 (3d Cir . 1995)) (internal c itat ions omitted). Under this deferential s tandard of review , all of C rosby’s a rgum ents fa il.

Crosby first argues th at the AL J comm itted error by rejecting Dr. H uha’s opin ion. E ven if the A LJ in correc tly conclu ded th at Cro sby wa s refe rred b y couns el to Dr. Huha, the re is sti ll s ubstantial e vidence t o support t he ALJ’s decis ion. Dr. Huha was4

not a “tre ating physi cian ” w hos e op inio n w oul d be entit led to def eren ce. See 20 C .F.R . § 404.1502. Dr. Huha’s opinion derived from tests he conducted on C rosby in cl ose temporalproximit

y t o the hearing beforethe ALJ, and he pr ovided no “treatment ” for her
con ditio n. Cro sby

nex t a ss er ts th atth e ALJ erre d byfi ndi ng that her ment al pr obl ems and sleep a pnea w ere not seve re impairm ents. As the D istrict Court conclud ed, how ever, Cro sby did n ot me et her b urde n ofprov ing tha t either im pairm ent, or th e imp airme nts take n as a w hol e, is m ore than sligh t.

Crosby ne xt argues that t he ALJ did not adequatelyconsider the evi dence from Dr. Campbell, who was a treati ng physi cian. Crosby a ssert s that the ALJ’s opi nion should have di scussed and gi ven deference to the portions of Dr. Campbell’s report t hat say Cro sby wa s una ble to p erfor m an y work , even sede ntary w ork. W hile C rosby is correct that an ALJ cannot rej ect evi dence for no re ason or for the wrong reas on, Plummer , 186 F.3d at

429, in t his cas e the ALJ did not rejec t, e xplici tly

or impli citly, the proffered e vidence. The ALJ merely aff orded Dr. Campbell ’s opini on less t han control ling weight , becausethe opini on was contradi cted byother doctors and i tsel f had por tion s bo th su ppo rting and und erm inin g C rosb y’s cla im.

Crosby also arg ues that the A LJ placed too mu ch em phasis on D r. Ga llaghe r’s statem ents tha t her co ndition s imp rove d w ith treatm ent. T here is noth ing inthe rec ord, h ow ever, to indica te that the we ight ass igned to D r. Galla gher ’s statem ents

was im proper.

Finally, Crosby contends that it was error fo r the AL J to reject her fiance ’s affidavit detai ling her daily physicallimitations. We need not dw ell on this i ssue, because any er ror, if pres ent, was harmless. The fiance’s descri ption of Cros by’ s li mitations mirr ore d he r ow n de scrip tion , wh ich th e A LJ c ons ider ed. III. For the r easons set

forth, we will affi rm the Dist rict Court’s order granting
su m m ar y ju dg m en t in fa vo r o f th e C om m iss io ne r o f S oc ial Se cu rity.