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
8-25-2004 

# Lep e nic a 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 . 03-4403

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

" L e pe nica v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 387. 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_2004/387* Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge for the United States D istrict Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylva nia, sitting by desig

nation. 1 NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

_______________ NO. 03-4403

_______________ KADA LEP ENI CA, Ap pellan t,

v. COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

_______________ ON APPE AL FROM THE UNIT ED STA TES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DISTRI CT OF NEW JERSEY District Cou rt Judge: Th e Ho norable F aith S. Ho chberg

(CivilNo. 02-4796)

___________ 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
. * ( Fil ed: August 25, 2004 )

_______________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

_______________2

FUEN TES, Circuit

Judge Appellant

Kada Lepenica appeal s from a deci sion of t he United States Dist

rict Court for t

he Distr ict of

New Jersey, which affir med the finaldecisi on of the Commissioner of Soci al Security (“Commissioner”) deny ing Lepenica ’s appl icat ion for Disa bility Insuran ce B enefits (“D IB”) und er the S ocial S ecurity A ct. Ou r review is limi ted to de termining whether the Commissioner’ s finaldecisi on was supported by sub stan tial ev iden ce. Hartranft v. Apfel , 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d. Cir . 1999). We now affirm t he Distr ict Court ’s deci sion. I. Lepenica appl ied for DIB on March 15, 2000 and was bot h denied i niti ally

and on reconsi derati on by t

he Appeals Council . Lepenica then sought

review before an Administr ative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and was ultimately found not dis abled within the
me anin g of

the S ocia l Se cur ity Ac t in a d ecis ion by the AL J da ted F ebr uar y 22, 2 002
. The AL J held that L epen ica did not m eet the requ isite seve rity of imp airme nt set fo rth in 20 C .F.R. § 404 .1521 and th erefo re w as no t signific antly limited in perform ing b asic work-related activities. Lepenica worked as a patient care t echnologi st at

Mountainside Hospi tal f rom approximat ely

April 1990 unt il J anuary 2000 when she was terminat ed. Lepenic a then worked as a medicalassis tant f rom May 2001 to June 2001 but was again te rminate d because of her

frequent absences. Lepenica al leges t hat her f requent a bsences fr om her job w ere a d irect resu lt of he r beco ming too w eak to wo rk, dev elopin g a rap id hea rtbeat,3

and sporadi call y col lapsi ng. Lepenica further alle ges that

these conditions have caused her to be in and out of hospi tals , emergency rooms and doctor ’s offi ces for various therap y and trea tmen t. Lepenica i niti ally

file d for dis ability

caused by

an injur y t o her lef

t wrist when a cart s he was pushing t ipped over and fellon it. As a result of this incide nt, Lepeni ca contends t

hat it has become an extr eme effort for her to do her

normal work-r elat ed chores or lift even a bed sheet . As a result of her a ccident , Lepenica was treat ed at Mountainside Hospi tal on J anuary 15, 1999, f

or a contus ion to her

left hand and a left trapez ius strain (Tr. 98 , 105) . The diagn osis w as that L epen ica suffered from mild
swe lling an d tend ernes s of h er third a nd f ourth meta carpa ls, witho ut crep itus, deform ity or distal neurov ascular deficits (Tr. 10 0). Lepen ica’s shoulder, elbo w an d wrist w ere oth erw ise n orm al, an d an x-ra y reve aled no f ractu re o r disl oca tion wit hin her left a rm. Le pen ica a lso u nde rw ent e valu ation of h er lef t arm wit h Je ffre y K. M iller, M .D., of Hand Surgeryand Rehabili tati on of North Jer sey . Dr. Mill er repor ted that Lepenica had normal range of motion i n her lef t forearm and that

it was only one- quarter centimeter sm aller in size than her right fo rearm. D r. Miller reported tha t Lepen ica’s complaint s of pain in her lef t wrist were inconsi stent . He noted t hat Lepenic a clai med
se ver e pa inon p al patio n of a s pec if ic ar ea o f he r l eft

wri st , b utwhenhe p al pat ed t he s ame area whil e she was dist

racte d, she r eported no pa in (Tr. 112). Dr. Miller c oncluded that Lep enica had n o w ork-re lated re strictions caus ed by he r left w rist.4

Lepenica furt

her cla imed that

she began to s uffer from an as sortment of other ailment s including mitral valve prolaps e, fibromyal gia trigger points, spigel ian herni a, and u ltimately de pressio n. Le penic a sou ght m edica l treatm ent fo r each of the se ailm ents and, according to the various medical report s and testimony of her doctors and therapi sts, treatment for e ach of the comp lained ailmen ts was suc cessful and follow-u p tests were
nor ma l. II. This Court’ s juri sdict ion over a f inal de cisi on of the Dist rict Court, whic h affirmed the final d ecis ion of th e C om mis sion er o f So cial S ecu rity, arise s un der 28 U .S.C . §12 91. The United Stat es District Court , Dist rict of New Jersey, entere d judgment on Sept ember 5, 20 03. A No tice o f A ppe al w as tim ely file d on No vem ber 5, 20 03. III. Lepen ica contend s that the District Co urt erred in its finding that su bstantial record evidence supported the Com missioner’s de cision that Lep enica w as not disabled . In reviewing t

he decisi on of the Dist

rict Court’s a ffirmance of t he finaldecisi on of the Commissioner denying Lepenica ’s DIB, the standard this Court uses i s whether t he administ rati ve record c ontains substantial e vidence suppor ting t he findi ngs of the Dis tri ct Court. The Supr eme Court has defined the t erm substantialevidence t o mean less t han a preponderanc e of the evi dence but “more t han a mere sci ntil la” which “a r easonable mind might accept

as adequat e to support a conclusion. ” Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Co nso lidat ed E diso n C o. v. N .L.R .B., 305 U .S. 197, 229 (1938).5

Add itionally, this Court ha s previously held that “[w ]here the A LJ’s finding s of fact are supporte d by subs tanti al evi dence, we are bound by those findings even i f we would have decided t he factualinquir

y di fferent ly .” Fargno li v. Massan ari , 247 F.3d 34,38 (3 rd Cir. 2001) (ci ting Hartranft , 181 F.3d at 360 (3 rd Cir. 1999 )). In deter mining the exist ence of a dis ability , the Commissioner fol lows a five- step procedure in accordance wit h 20 C.F.R. §404. 1520. If t he Commissioner c an establ ish a disab ility or non-d isability at any po int durin g the a nalysis, then the C om missio ner w ill not revi ew the clai m any furt her. 20 C. F.R. §404. 1520(a). In the first t wo steps, the clai mant must est ablis h that s he is not engaged in any

substantial ga inful a ctivity and that she su ffers from a sev ere m edica l impa irmen t that limits h er ph ysical or m ental a bility to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §404. 1520 and 20 C.F.R. §416. 920. In thi s case, the ALJ found that Lepenica di d not posses s a sever e impair ment and was therefor e not dis abled under the Act; thus, the Commissione r ended the process at the second st ep. The United St ates Dis tri ct Court of the Dist rict of New Jersey reviewed the numerous medicalreport s used by the ALJ to det ermine that Lepenic a was not burdened by a sev ere im pairm ent, an d acc ordin gly held th at Le penic a w as no t disable d as se t forth by t he five- step analysi s of 20 C.F.R. §404.1520. The ALJ considered numerous medical r eports and examinati ons regar ding Lepenica’s conditi on. According to the Mountainsi de Hospitalexaminati on of Lepenica in Januar y 1999, there was no evi dence of a frac ture, disl ocati on, change i n soft t issue, or any ot her abnormal ity

in Lepenica ’s le ft hand. The report only noted mil d swelli ng over1 We note th e A LJ’s o bserv ation th at Le penic a refu sed to be ex amin ed by do ctors in

consult ative examinati ons schedul ed by t he SocialSecurit

y Adminis tration. The Commissioner’ s regul ations provide t hat a cl aimant who refus es to cooperate i n a cons ultative e xam ination with out g ood caus e ma y be fou nd, by the Co mm issione r, to have no disability , solely on the basis of such refusal. 20 C.F.R. §404.1518. Because

6 the third and fort

h metacarpal . Tr. 14. Furt hermore, the ALJ alluded to Dr. J effrey M iller’s ob serva tion tha t in fac t there e xisted n o sign ifican t func tional d eficit in Lepenica’s left

extremi ty

and that theref ore, t here was no evide nce of an impai rment or cause for work r estr icti on. The record shows that Lepeni ca was also s uccessful ly treat ed for an abdo mina l hernia to repa ir and c orrect d iscom fort. T he A LJ co nside red a v ariety of other r eports , al l of which y ielde d normal res ults and only further substantiate d the dec ision of th e A LJ t hat L epe nica wa s no t disa bled as d efin ed b y the S ocia l Se cur ity Ac t. See Tr. 14-16. As such, subs tanti al evi dence support s the ALJ’s dec isi on to deny Le pen ica’s DI B. Lepenica cont ends that

the ALJ fail ed to provi de suffici ent expl anati on for rejec ting r elevant

evidence or

to res olve dis crepanci es in t he probative evidence, such that there c ould be no meaningfuljudici al revi ew. Specifi call y, Lepenica re fers t o her hand ther apis t’s ex am inati on o f he r lef t extr em ity, wh ich w as n ot p rese nt in the A LJ’ s de cisio n. Lepenica’s clai m is without merit s ince the thera

pist ’s conclusions are neither in co ns is te ntwit

h no r c ont

ra di ct othe r r ep orte d me di ca l r ep orts ev al ua te d by th e ALJ . A s for Lepenica’ s contention that the ALJ wrongfully

overlooked r eports of depress ion, t he ALJ specific ally

cite d sympt oms of depressi on and sti ll found no di sabil ity within t he Social Sec urit

y Act ( Tr. 15), and the Dist rict Court refe rred t o the same i n its opinion. 1there i s suffi cient evidence in the rec ord to suppor t the ALJ’s denialof benefit s, we need not addres s whether Lepeni ca’s r efusal to undergo an examination const itut ed ind epe nde nt g rou nds for that d enia l. 7 Upon a careful r eview of the entire r ecord, we conclude that substantial e vidence sup ports th e ALJ ’s dec is io n. Acco rd in gl y , we aff ir m th e de ni al of DI B.