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
5-7-2003 

# D orsey 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 02-4187

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_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
" D or s ey v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 568. 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_2003/568* 

### Judge Scir ica bec ame Chief Judge on May 4, 2003. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

__________ No. 02-4187

__________ CHARLES DORSEY,

Appellant
v.

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

* (Pursuan t to F.R.A.P . 43(c))

__________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (Civ. No. 01- cv-04846) Distric t Judg e: Jud ge Ja n E. D uB ois

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

April 25, 2003

___________ Be for e: S CIR ICA , Chief Judge , * AM BR O a nd G AR TH , Circuit Judges (Opinion Fi led: May 7, 2003)

__________ OPI NION

__________

### -2-

GA RT H, Circu it Judge : Ch arles D orsey ap peals f rom the D istrict Co urt’s gra nt of s um mary jud gm ent in favor of the Com missioner of Social Sec urity. The Com missioner ha d denied Dorse y’s app licatio n fo r disa bility ins ura nce ben efits . W e w ill aff irm.

I. Because we write s olely for the be nefit

of the parties , we recount the fact s and the proceduralhist ory of the cas e onlyas theyare rel evant t o the fol lowing dis cussion. Dorsey was 34 y ears ol d at the alle ged onset date of the di sabil ity , and i s now 44 year s old. Essenti ally , Dorseyclai med benefits by r eason of a herni ated di sc. Dorsey file d an appli cati on for dis abili ty insurance benefit s on October 15, 1999. The Social Security Adminis tration (SSA) denie d Dorsey’ s appli cati on on January26, 2000. An Adm inis trative Law Judge (ALJ) hel d a heari ng on December 13, 2000. At t he hearing, the ALJ heard t esti mony from Dorsey ; Dr. Victor Vare, an i ndependent medic al exp ert; a nd J ean nin e Sa lek, a voc ation al ex per t. The A LJ issued a decision ad verse to D orsey on Janua ry 4, 2001. The AL J’s decisi on considered and evaluated not only the te sti mony at t

he heari ng but als o treat ment notes and reports from severalsources, includi ng Dr. John Sal vo, Dorsey ’s treati ng physician ; Dr. M ichae l M anda rino, an ortho pedic surge on w ho h ad ex amin ed D orsey in1 

### The text of t he order r eflectsa dat

e of October

4, 2002 , but this wo uld appear to be an inadve

rtent e rror; t he order ha s been st

amped a s filed on Nove

mber 4, 2002 and entered the next da

y. The distr

ict cour t docket a lso indic ates t

hat the or der was filed on November

4, 2002. -3- March 1994; Dr. Stanl ey Aski n, an ort hopedic sur geon who examined Dorsey in 1998; and Drs. Judi th Peter son and Richard Kapl an. In addi tion, the ALJ considered information pert aining to a heari ng on a clai m by Dorseyfor worker’s compensati on, as well as information from other sources. Af ter rece iving th e A LJ’s d ecision , Do rsey soug ht revie w f rom the A ppea ls Co unc il, and sub mitte d ad ditio nal m ateri als in con nec tion wit h hi s req ues t for rev iew
. The Appeals Council de nied revi ew on September 6, 2001. On September 24, 2001, Dorsey s ought judi cial review byfili ng an acti on in the Distri ct Court. Following cr oss-moti ons for summaryjudgment byDorsey a nd the Com missioner, the M agistrate Judge to w hom the case ha d been referred filed a R eport and Recommendation concl uding that the Commissione r’s moti on for summary judgment should be gr anted. On Novem ber 4, 2002, 1 the D istrict Co urt ord ered th at the M agistrate Judge’s R eport and R ecom mend ation be ap proved and ad opted; that the C omm issioner’s motion f or summ ary judgmen t be granted; an d that Do rsey’s motion for su mm ary judgment be deni ed. Dorsey’ s ti mely appeal fol lowed.2 

### In short, the five-step proce ss operates as fo llows:

At Step On e, the Commissioner must determine w hether the claimant is -4- II. We have juris dicti on to hear t his appealpursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We have previousl y se t fort h our standard of revi ew in cases i nvolving an appeal from the denial of disabili ty benefit s as follows: The role of this C ourt is id entica l to that o f the D istrict Co urt, nam ely to determi ne whether there is substant ial e vidence t o support t he Commissioner’ s decis ion. . . . The Court is bound bythe ALJ’s fi ndings of fac t if th ey are sup por ted b y subs tanti al ev iden ce in the r eco rd. 4 2 U .S.C . § 405(g) . . . Substan tial evidence ha s been d efined as “ more tha n a me re scintill a. It

means such rel evant evi dence as a r easonablemind might acc ept as adequat e.” Ven tura v . Shala la , 55 F.3d 900, 901 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting Richardson v. Perales , 402 U .S. 389, 401 . . . (1971)). Plummer v. Apfel , 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 199 9) (certain citations om itted). To establish an entitlement to benefits, a claim ant m ust de mo nstrate th ere is so me “ med ically determ inable basis for an impai rment that prevent s him from engagi ng in any‘subst antia l gainf ul activ ity’ for a statu tory twelv e-mo nth p eriod.” . . . A claim ant is considered unable t o engage in anysubstant ial a ctivi ty “onlyif his physi cal or m ental im pairm ent or im pairm ents ar e of s uch s everity that h e is no t only unable t o do his pre vious work but c annot, considering his age, educat ion, and w ork exp erience, enga ge in any other kind of substan tial gainful wo rk wh ich e xists in th e na tion al ec ono my.” Id . at 427-28 (ci tati ons omitted). The Commissi oner undert akes a fi ve-st ep sequenti al evaluation proces s to make thedisabi lit y determination. 2

### current ly engaging in a

“substa ntial ga inful act ivity .” . . . If so, she

is not eligible. . . . At Step Tw o, the Commissioner must d etermine whether th e claimant has a “severe im

pairment.” . . . If the claim ant does not have a severe impairment, then she is no t eligible. . . . At Step Th ree, if a claimant does n ot suffer from an impairment on the list of impai rments presum

ed to be severe enough t

o preclude

gainful work, the Commissioner moves to S tep Four. . . . Step Four requires t

he Comm issione r to deci de whether

the cla imant retains the res idual funct

ional ca pacity to perform

her past releva nt work. . . . The claimant bears the bu rden of d emonstrating an in ability to return to her past relevant work. . . . If the cl aimant is unable t o resume her forme

r occupation , the evaluation moves to Step F ive. . . . At Step Five , the Com

miss ioner hasthe burden of demonstr ating tha t the claimant i s capable of performing other jobs existing in significant num bers in the national economy . . . . At Step Five, the Comm issioner is to consider the claimant's vocation al factors. Thoma s v. Commissio ner of Socia l Security , 294 F.3d 568, 571 (3d Cir. 2002) (en banc) (citations omitted), cert. granted , 123 S. C t. 1251 (2 003). See also, e.g. , Burns v. Barnhart , 312 F .3d 11 3, 118 -19 (3 d C ir. 2002 ); Fargnoli v. Massanari , 247 F.3d 34, 39 (3d Cir. 200 1). 

### -5- III. We agree with the Magistrate Judge and Dist rict Court’s de termination t hat the ALJ’s decisi on was supported by substant ial e vidence. In accorda nce with the five- step se quentia l eval uation process, the ALJ firs t found that D orsey w as no t enga ged in subs tantial ga inful a ctivity. Dec ision o f A LJ at 1 3. N ext,3 

### This rebut tal evidence evi dently

would have ta

ken the form

of a “post- hearing report,” accord ing to Do rsey’s request for review b y the Appeals Coun cil. See App. 8a9a. -6- the ALJ found that

Dorsey ha d “degenerative dis ease of the lumbar spi ne,” a “s evere” impairment , but not

one that meets or equa ls the criteria f or a li sted i mpairment cont ained in 2 0 C .F.R . § 40 4, S ubp art P , Ap pen dix 1. Id . The ALJ further found that

though Dorsey’ s impairment places limi tati ons on Dorsey , he “re tains the res idual f unctiona l cap acity to lift u p to 20 p oun ds o cca sion ally an d pe rfo rm p ostu ral ac tivitie s oc cas ion ally,” though “he i s li mited i n pushing and pul ling; and he must al ternate sitting and s tanding every15 to 30 minut es.” Id . Final ly , the ALJ concluded that Dorsey’ s impairment does not preclude him from “engagi ng in occupations with signi ficant numbers of jobs in the regionaland nati onal economies .” Id
. Do rsey’s chie f argu men t on ap peal is th at the A LJ er red in d enying h is requ est to submit addi tionalevidence fr om Dr. Salvo, Dors ey’ s tre ating phy sici an, t o rebut t he hearin g testim ony of Dr. V are, the indep ende nt me dical e xper t. 3 A cc or di ng to D or se y, because Dr. Vare ’s te sti mony was heavil y r elie d upon by t he ALJ in making the determi nation t

hat Dorseydid not qual ifyfor dis abili ty benefit s, Dorsey should have had
a c ha nc e to re sp on d t o t ha t te sti m on y. In thi s case, Dorsey ha s fail ed to demonstr ate that subst antia l evide nce does not exist to support

the ALJ’s det erminations. The ALJ explained that he decl ined the request for a post -heari ng statement from Dr. Sal vo

### -7-

because Dr. Sal vo on severaloccasions alrea dy has offered hi s opini on of the cl aimant’ s abil ity

to work and given hi s reasons in support of that opinion. In fact , Dr. Sal vo went through a l engthydeposition jus t one y ear ago and another

such deposi tion i n 1996. Although Dr. Salvo has not specifi call y commented on Dr. Vare’s t esti mony, c ounsel has offered no reason t o belie ve that

Dr. Salvo wil l provi de any i nformati on or opini ons not included in his pri or statements. Decision of ALJ at

1 n.1. The record wa s suff iciently w ell dev elope d so th at the A LJ w as no t require d to
rece ive a ddi tion al ev iden ce f rom Dr . Sal vo. H avin g co nsid ered , inter alia , Dr. Salvo’s deposition tes timonyand treatment not es, t he ALJ need not have revi ewed additi onal i nf orma t i on fr om Dr
. Sa l vo on ce ag ai n w i t ho ut a p r of fe r of pr oo f a s to i t s c on t en t . We note th at now here in Do rsey’s brief does Do rsey exp lain w hat D r. Salvo migh t have said in rebut tal t hat would add t o Dr. Salvo’ s previ ous statements, deposition tes timony , and reports. We are also satis fied that the re is no other bas is upon which Dorsey can clai m that the AL J’s decision w as not supp orted by substantial eviden ce. To the c ontrary, it appears that t he ALJ undertook a comprehens ive examinat ion of the evidentiaryrecord, and the record evi dence support s the ALJ’s dec isi on. We will the refor e aff irm the judg men t of the Distric t Cou rt. TO THE C LERK: Please fi le the foregoing opi nion.
/s/ Judge Leonard I. Garth Circuit Judge