2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-16-2007

Hernandez v. Comm Social Security

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-3128

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Hernandez v. Comm Social Security" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 581.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/581
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-3128

 

REINA HERNANDEZ,

Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Appellee.

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 05-cv-01717)

District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 28, 2007

Before: BARRY, FUENTES, and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: August 16, 2007)

___________

OPINION

___________

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

Reina Hernandez appeals the District Court’s determination that the

Commissioner’s decision to deny her Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social
1

 Hernandez claimed that her disability arose from neck and lower back pain, asthma,

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and hepatitis C. Among other things, a New

Jersey state disability examiner found Hernandez physically capable to occasionally lift

and/or carry up to 50 pounds, frequently lift and/or carry up to 25 pounds, and stand

and/or walk about 6 hours in an eight-hour workday. The medical evidence reveals that

Hernandez’s asthma is under control as is her hepatitis C. Based on the medical

evidence, the administrative law judge found that Hernandez retained the residual

functional capacity to return to her past work as a receptionist and intake worker and thus

not disabled under the Act.

2

 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the Agency’s factual findings only

to determine whether the administrative record contains substantial evidence supporting

the findings. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259, 262 (3d Cir. 2000).

We exercise plenary review over all legal issues. See id.

2

Security Act was based on correct legal analysis and was supported by substantial

evidence.1

 Because we agree with the District Court in all respects, we will affirm.2

We write primarily for the parties who are well acquainted with the facts and so

will not recount them here. Moreover, because the District Court’s analysis of

Hernandez’s claim was thorough—in its recitation of the appropriate legal principles and

its application of those principles in this case—we adopt that reasoning. In sum, based on

our independent review of the administrative record and the briefs, we agree that (1)

objective medical evidence does not support Hernandez’s disability claim; (2) the

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) properly exercised his discretion to evaluate, and in

some instances discount, Hernandez’s subjective complaints in light of the objective

medical evidence; and (3) the ALJ’s determination that Hernandez had the residual

functional capacity to perform medium work, including her previous work as an intake
3

worker, was supported by adequate reasoning and substantial evidence. For these

reasons, articulated more fully by the District Court, we will affirm.