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 5-26-2004 

# P a rsons 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 . 03-4141

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 . v i 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 . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" P a r s on s v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 680. 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_2004/680Hon orable Lo uis H. Po llak, Senior D istrict Judge for the U nited States D istrict Court

for the Eas tern Dis tri ct of Pennsy lvania , si tti ng by des ignati on. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 03-4141

___________ TO DD L. P AR SO NS , JR ., Ap pellan t,

v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMM ISSI ONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINI STRAT ION

________________________ ON APPE AL FROM THE UNIT ED STA TES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DIST RICT OF DELAWARE District Cou rt Judge: Th e Ho norable Jo seph J. Farn an, Jr.

(CivilNo. 01-cv-00878)

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

May 6, 2004 BE FO RE : SL OV ITE R a nd F UE NT ES , Circu it Judges ,

and PO LL AK , Distri ct Judge
. * (Opinion Fi led: May 26, 2004)

_______________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

_______________________-2-

FU EN TE S, Circuit

Judge : Appellant

Todd Parsons, Jr., was born in 19 80, and su ffers from antisoc ial perso nality disorder. From September 199 5 unt il Novem ber 199 8, Parsons re ceived disab led child’s bene fits on th e bas is of h is disord er, but th e ben efits w ere dis contin ued in November 1998 when he became an ad ult. Parso ns appli ed for adult child di sabil ity

benefit s, but

an Ad minis trative Law Judg e (“A LJ”) denie d suc h ben efits af ter a A pril 200 0 hea ring; this denialwa s sub sequ ently affirm ed by the Soc ial S ecurity Admi nist rati on Appeals Counciland the Distri ct Court be low. Speci fi call y, the ALJ and Distri ct Court f ound that Par sons was not disab led un der the Soc ial Sec urity Act b ecau se his im pairm ents d id not m eet or fun ctio nally equal the lis ted requirements for disabi lit y, and because he coul d perform certai n
uns kille d jo bs in the n ation al ec ono my. Although this Court ex ercises plenary review over t he D istr ict Co urt’s de cision, it
re vi ews the underl yi ng decisi on of the ALJ “to determine whether it i s supported by substant ial evidence. ” Newell v. Commissi oner of Soc. S ec. , 347 F.3d 541, 545 (3 rd Cir. 2003). Substantial e vidence i s more than a mere sci ntil la, but less t han a pr epo nde ran ce. Id. It has often be en described as “such relevant evidence as a reasonabl e mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusi on.” E.g. , id. (quoti ng Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (19 71) ). Put another way, s ubstantial e vidence i s enough evidenc e to jus tify denialof
a directed verdic t to t

he opposing si de if the matter had go ne to a ju ry trial. Reefer v. Barnh art , 326 F.3d 37 6, 379 (3 rd Cir. 2003 ). Inherent to thi s deferential s tandard of reviewCuriously, Parsons simultaneously attacks the vali dityof Dr. Simon’s report. Because

all of the practi tioners agree with Dr. Simon’s analy sis of Parsons’s li mitations, substantial eviden ce wo uld have supported the AL J’s decision ev en in the ab sence of Dr. Sim on’s re port. -3- is the rule that ev en if th ere is co ntrary evid ence in the rec ord th at wo uld justify the o ppo site conclusi on , th e AL J’s deci sion wil l be uphel d if it is al so supported by t he evidence. Simmonds v. Heckler , 807 F.2d54, 58 (3 rd Cir. 19 86); accord Sykes v. Apfel , 228 F.3d 259, 262 (3 rd Cir. 2000 ). We aff irm substant

ially for the rea sons expres sed in t he thorough and pe rsuasi ve opinion of the Distric t Cou rt. We add o nly the fo llow ing to u nder score our a greem ent w ith that dec ision
. Parsons ar gues that the ALJ understated Parsons’ s li mitations re sulting from his diso rde r. However, as the Dis tri ct Court c ogently explai ned, Pars ons offers no medi cal evidence or testim ony fro m an y practition er sub stantiatin g his a lleged inability to wor k. To the contra ry, all of the h ealth provider s who opined on Parsons’ s mental he alth testi fied that Parso ns’s d isability did not pre clud e him fro m w ork ing
. The o nly evidence P arsons of fers to s how that theALJ understated his l imit ations is the report of Dr. Bry an Sim on, th e psychologist who co nducted the psy chologic al te sts ordered bythe ALJ in thi s case. 1 Dr. Simon ’s report

stated that

Parsons has a “fair ” abil ity to perform in cer tain areas. Parsons contends that

a “fa ir” ability transla tes to a “ mark ed” lim itation o n his ability to perf orm in those areas. Dr. Simon defi ned “fair ” for t he purposes of his t esti ng as “capabl e of performing t

he acti vity

sati sfactorily

some of the time.”Parso ns also argu es that th e A LJ n ever d eterm ined h is Re sidua l Fun ctiona l Cap acity

(“RFC”), but

as the government point s out, the ALJ expli citly st ated that “cl aimant r etai ns the functional c apacity t o perform si mple, r epeti tive t asks invol ving mini mal int eraction with the publ ic. ” App. at 17. -4- We agree with the Dist

rict Court that

this defini tion of “ fair” fall s short of describing
a “ma rked ” limitatio n, and at mo st desc ribes a “mo derate ” limitatio n on Parso ns’s ab ility to work. Since the A LJ’s V ocational E xpert (“VE”) confirmed Par sons’s abili ty to work even assuming moderate li mitati ons, Dr. Si mon’s report is o f no help to Parson s. Si m ila rly, Parsons’s argumentthat t he ALJ understated the extent of hi s li mitations t o the VE by cal ling them “minim al” is unavailing: the V E’s opinion t hat Pars ons could work would have appl ied
even if Pars ons had mo der ate lim itatio ns. The AL J prope rl y re fus ed to as k the VE to as sum e that Parsons suf

fered from gre ater t

han moderate lim itat

ions becaus e such an ass umption would have run coun ter to the medicalevidence. Because subst antia l evide nce undergi rds the ALJ’s deni al of benefi ts, we affirm that determi nation. 2