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 4-15-2004 

# C a rdon 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 . 03-2472

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 sity 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 sity 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 a r don a v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 830. 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_2004/830NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ No. 03-2472

____________ NELSO N CARDONA, Appellant
v. COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

____________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (D.C. No. 01-cv- 04952) District Judge: H onorab le Joseph A . Greena way, Jr.

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

April 1, 2004 Be for e: A LIT O, F ISH ER and AL DI SE RT , Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed : April15, 2004)

____________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

____________ FIS HE R, Circu it Judge
. Cardona appeals from an order of t he dist rict court gr anting s ummary judgment for the Commissione r of SocialSecurit y and aff irming t he denialof his appl icat ion for Soci al2

Sec urity be nefits un der Title s II an d X VI of th e So cial S ecu rity Ac t (“A ct”). See 42 U.S.C . §§ 401-4 34, 1381 -1383(f). The district c ourt had j urisdi ction pur suant t o 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) , which l imit s the scope of the district

court’ s revi ew to the Commissi oner’s f inal de cisi on. We have juri sdiction pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1291. We exerci se plenar y r eview over questions of law, see Knepp v. Apfe l , 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000), and r eview the deci sion of t he Co mm issio ner to d eterm ine w heth er it is s upp orte d by su bsta ntial evid enc e. See Ric har dso n v. P era les, 402 U .S. 389, 390 , 91 S.Ct. 142 0, 1422 (1 971). The issue before the Cou rt is whether the A LJ’s finding s regarding C ardona’s imp airm ents and his a bility to r etur n to wo rk a re su ppo rted by sub stan tial ev iden ce. Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scinti lla. I t means such relevant evidence as a
reas ona ble m ind mig ht ac cep t as a deq uate ” to s upp ort a con clus ion
. Plummer v. Apfel , 186 F.3d 422, 427 ( 3d Cir. 1999) (cit ations omitt ed) . “We will not set t he Comm is si one r’ s d ec is io n a si de if it is suppo rt edby

subs tant ia l e vi de nc e, ev en if we would have decided t

he factualinquir

y di fferent ly .” Hartranft v. Apfel , 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999 ) (citations omitted). For the r easons st ated i n the dis tri ct court ’s opini on, we find t hat the Commi ss io ner ’s dec is io n was sup porte d by sub st antia l e vi den ce and t her efo re we af

fi rm. Cardona was born on Januar y 24, 1958, and complet ed the ei ghth grade. He was hit by a car

while he was crossing the street on December 25, 1995. Prior to his injuri es,3

he had been employ ed in the rest aurant industry as a dis hwasher, as a gas st ation atte ndant, and as a machine ope rator in a metalfactor

y. After the accident , Cardona
com plete d ex tens ive p hysica l ther apy. Cardona fil ed a claim for SupplementalIncome Benefit s and Disabi lit y I nsurance Ben efits on Ap ril 23, 19 96. T he cla im w as initially den ied by the Soc ial Sec urity Administr ation, and his cl aim was heard by an ALJ on December 11, 1997, and subsequent ly

denied on March 24, 1998. The ALJ determined that while Cardona suffered from severe impai rments, the impai rments di d not meet or surpass the le vel of severi ty of a li sted i mpairment, that Car dona did not have any s ignifi cant non-e xerti onal limi tati ons, and t

hat based upon Car dona’s age, educati on, past work experienc e, and resi dual funct ional c apacit y, he was capable of performing work exis ting in the nat ional
econo my. Additiona lly, the AL J found that Cardo na’s subjective c omp laints of pain w ere not supported by or

consistent with obj ecti ve medical e vidence. This deci sion was appeal ed to the Appeals Councilwhich denied hi s request for review on March 5, 2001, and the ALJ’s deci sion became t he finaldecisi on of the Commissioner. Cardona sought r eview of the Commissi oner’s de cisi on in the United States Distri ct Court f

or the Dis tri ct of New Jersey . The dis tri ct court affirmed t

he Commissioner’ s decis ion on March 31, 2003. There is su bstantial evidence to suppo rt all of the AL J’s findings. C ardona’s subjective complaints of pain, muscle spasms, atrophy , los s of strength, decrease d4

reflex es, hea dach es an d m ental im pairm ents w ere no t supp orted b y or con sistent w ith object ive medicalevidence. The ALJ found that the subjective complaints l acked credibi lit y. Cardona did not

take pre scription medi cine and occa sional ly used over t

he counter pa in remedi es. Cardona ha d not seen a doc tor for severalmonths pri or to t he hearing be fore the A LJ. Card ona claim ed he n eeded a cane. H owe ver, a doctor’s
exam ination revea led tha t Card ona c ould wa lk w ithout a cane , althou gh h e had one in his hand. Cardona’ s phys icaltherapi st al so stated that he could walk wit

hout a cane. The A LJ add itionally found that som e of the co nflicting med ical opinions w ere inconsi stent

with the record as a whole , and the ALJ stated hi s reasons for dis regarding thes e co nflic ting opi nio ns. Aft er a r ev ie w of

th e matt er , e xe rc is in g the ap pr opriate st an da rd s o f r ev ie w, we hav e co nclu ded that t her e is su bsta ntial evid enc e to s upp ort a ll of t he A LJ’ s co nclu sion s. W e ha ve n o ba sis o n w hich to re ver se th e op inio n an d or der of th e dis trict c our t. Consequently , the order of March 31, 2003, willbe affir med.

________________________