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
4-14-2004 

# S chmidt 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 . 03-3490

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
" S chmidt v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 836. 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_2004/836NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No
. 03-3490
CARLOS SCHMI DT ,

Appellant v. COMM ISSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the Distri ct of New Jersey (D ist. C our t. No
. 01-cv-01901 ) Distri ct Court J

udge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Submitte d under Third Ci rcuit LAR 34.1(a) April 2, 2004 Before: ALITO , FISHERand ALDISE RT , Circuit Judges
. (Opinion Fi led April14, 2004)

OPINI ON OF THE COURT
AL DI SE RT , Circuit

Judge
. Be cau se w e w rite f

or th e pa rties o nly, the bac kgr oun d of the c ase is no t set forth
. Carlos Schmidt

appeals f

rom 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. §§ 401-434, 1381-1383(f) . Schmidt argues t hat the Commissioner’ s deter minati on is not su ppo rted by su bstan tial evide nce, th at the A dm inistrative Law Judg e imp rope rly rejected the op inion o f the tre ating p hysician e ven th oug h it w as un contra dicted and d id not adequat ely

analyze Appellant ’s subj ecti ve complaint s of pain ac cording t o the
ma nda ted p roto col b y the C om mis sion er. We must uphold the Commissi oner’s f actualfindings if the y ar e support ed by sub stan tial ev iden ce in the r eco rd. Hartranft v. Apfel 181 F.3 d 35 8, 36 0 (3 d C ir. 19 99)
. 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 conclude that

the ALJ’s fi ndings ar e support ed by s ubstant ial e vidence. The ALJ determined t

hat Appell ant, who was 34 at the time of the ALJ hearing, retained the residual func tional capacity (“RFC ”) to perform work except fo r lifting and carrying mo re than te n pounds frequently and more than t

wenty pounds occasiona lly ; si tting more than six hours in an ei ght hour day ; and st anding/wal king more than six hours in an ei ght hour day. Based on an exert ional c apacit y for light work, and the a

ppellant’s a ge, education and work experie nce, t

he rele vant medical -vocati onal rul es dir ected a conc lusi on of “not disabl ed.” See 20 C.F.R. § 416. 969; 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2. Regarding the ALJ’s deter minati on of Schmidt’s RFC for a full r ange of li ght3

work, Schmidt argues that the assess ment made by Dr. Bates, his treating physi cian, should have bee n given controll ing weight ove r that of Dr. Danza, a non- treating physician from the State D isability Service. In review ing the record , the district court noted that the record “i s devoid of any object ive medicalevidence of cl inica l or laboratory tests that support D r. Bates’ assessm ent of Sc hmidt’s R FC.” W hat’s more, D r. Bates’ as sessment i s inconsi stent with the medi cal evi dence that is cont ained i n the
reco rd. In deter

mining that Schmidt ’s subj ecti ve complaint s were “not ful ly credibl e,” t

he AL J first co nside red the med ical ev idenc e in the record as a w hole. B ased on th e repo rts from Drs. Carr , Gram and Bates and x- ray s, t he ALJ concluded that

this medical evi dence
wa s “no t alone so serio us as to wa rrant g reater f unctio nal lim itations” than w as ne eded to perform li ght work. The evi dence in t he record r eported no s igns of j oint s wellings or defo rmity, no d ecrea se in m uscle s trength and n o m uscle w asting. B oth S chm idt and his wife testifie d that Schmi dt was taking his medication as prescr ibed. This tes timony contradicted the reports of sev eral physicians, how ever, wh o wh en referring to S chmidt’s diabet es, not ed it was poorly control led and that Schmidt had a hist oryof poor
com plianc e. It is significant th at the A LJ co nside red S chm idt’s prio r wo rk reco rd in determi ning the c redibi lit y of hi s complaint s. Alt hough Schmidt was only 34 year s of age, he t esti fied that his last job was eight

year s previ ous as a mechani c which he held for a two week period. The ALJ properly determi ned that

this testimony coul d not enhance4

the credibil ity

of Schmidt’s complaints. We have considered a ll of t he content ions ra ised by the parties and conc lude that no f urth er d iscu ssio n is n ece ssar y. The judgment of the dist rict court wil l be affi rmed.