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
11-5-2003 

# S chome r 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 N o . 03-1643

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
" S chome r v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 131. 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_2003/131NOT PRE CEDENT IAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

____________ No. 03-1643

____________ MARY M. SCHOMER, Appellant

v. THE COMMI SSI ONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

____________ App eal from th e Un ited States District Co urt For th e W estern Distric t of P enns ylvania D.C. No.: 02- cv-00776 Distri ct Judge: Honorable Alan N. Bloch

____________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a) October 22, 2003 Be for e: A LIT O, F UE NT ES , and RO SE NN , Circuit Judges (Fil ed : November 5, 2003)

____________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

____________ ROSENN , Circ uit J udge. Having exhauste d all of her admini strative remedies i n her claim for Sup plem ental S ecurity Inc om e (SS I) ben efits, inclu ding two hearin gs be fore tw o sep arate2

Administr ativeLaw Judges (ALJ), Mary M. Schomer, appell ant, brought t his ci vil ac tion against the Commissione r of SocialSecurity i n the Unite d States Distri ct Court f or the Western Dist

rict of Pennsy lvania

pursuant to § 205(g) of the Soci al Securi ty Act (the Act), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) t o obtain j udicial revi ew of the finaldecisi on of the Com missioner de nying her claim fo r SSI ben efits. The D istrict Court entered su mm ary judgment for

the Commissione r affirming the fi nal deci sion of the Commissioner. The cl ai mant ti mel y app eal ed. We af fi rm. I. The appellant rai ses two major issues in her appe al. The first issue i s whether the findings by the ALJ in his deci sion were suppor ted bysubstant

ial e vidence, especia lly the find ing s w ith re gar d to the c laim ant’ s dis abili ty and resid ual f unc tion al ca pac ity (RF C). The seco nd is w hethe r the A ppea ls Co uncil d enied appe llant he r con stitutiona lly protected du e process b y taking thirty-si x mo nths to rende r a decision on her reque st for a
re vi ew. Turning to t

he primary

issue, whether theDistri ct Court e rred i n enteri ng judgment for

the Commissione r on the fi ndings of the ALJ that Schomer’ s disabi lities and RFC w ere supported bysubstant ial e vidence, the fact s are wellknown to the part ies and
we will no t review the ev idenc e of S chom er’s m any illnesse s and disab ilities. Suf fice it to saythat SSIbenefit s are not only dependent upon t

he clai mant’s di sabil iti es but of equ al im por tanc e, on the c laim ant’ s fu nctio nal li mita tion s aris ing out of th ose disa bilitie s.3

Un der the Ac t, to be elig ible fo r SSI , a claim ant m ust no t only hav e a m edica lly determinable physi cal or mental impairment that i s severe, but the i mpairment must also be of suff icient se verity to pre vent h er fro m en gagin g in an y substan tial gainf ul activ ity that ex ists in the n ationa l econ om y. 42 U .S.C. § 138 2c(a)( 3); Petition of Sull ivan , 904 F.2d 82 6, 845 (3d Cir. 1990 ) ( holding that c laimant must show not onl y a di agnosed impairment but also functional l imitati ons that preclude working). The impairment must be expected to resul t in death or t o have lasted or to be e xpected t o last for a continuous per iod of n ot les s tha n tw elve mo nth s to q ualif y as an imp airm ent u nde r the Ac t. In ad dition, to be dis abling , the im pairm ent m ust ha ve res ulted in an ina bility to engag e in any substantial gainfu l activity t hat has lasted o r is expected to last fo r a continuous period of not less t han twelve months . 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1) (A). The Act spec ifically requ ires that f or an impa irmen t to be d isabling , it must b e of s uch s everity that a clai mant is not

onlyunable t o do her previ ous work but cannot , consi dering her age, education , and w ork exp erience, enga ge in any other kind of substan tial gainful wo rk which exist s in the nati onal economy , regardless of whether such work exi sts i n the immediate area i n which she li ves, or whether a spec ific job vacancyexist s for her , or wh ethe r she wo uld be h ired if sh e ap plied for wo rk. 4 2 U .S.C . § 13 82c (a)(3 )(B ). Objecti ve medical e vidence which s upports a clai m of disabli ng pain or di sabli ng limita tion s is ce ntra l to d isab ility dete rmin ation s. The rec ord show s that the AL J carefully considered the existence o f Scho mer’s4

medical t reatment and disabl ing condit

ions and t

he limi tati ons resul ting t herefrom. The ALJ found that she ha d severe i mpairments of anxiety di sorder and depressi on, low back pain, leg pai n, shortness of breath, shoulder

pain, bilateral c arpal t

unnel sy ndrome, and status-post

four-way coronary bypass surgery, and that she accommod ated those impairments by imposing several work-related limitati ons and num erous restri ctions. The troubl esome problem, which appell ant seems to overlook, is the effect he r impairme nts have h ad in preclud ing her from perform ing a limited rang e of light w ork that accom mod ated all of her limitations. T he voc ational expert, in respo nse to the A LJ’s hypothetic al questions which embrac ed the desc ription of thedisabi lities, identi fied severaljobs that Schomer coul d perform with a ll of t he limi tati ons and rest

rictions imposed on her. T he A LJ’s finding that appellant w as capab le of, but limited to, the w ork specifi ed by t

he vocati onal expert is well supported bythe evi dence of Dr. Jabbour, t he clai mant’s fami lyphysi cian. Dr. Jabbour f ound that Schomer

had sati sfactory r ange of motion in all of her joi nts, no motor deficits , normal sensation and deep tendon reflexes, and in tact cran ial nerv es. D r. Tran and D r. Ku mar b oth o pined that claim ant w as cap able of at l east t

he range of work speci fied bythe ALJ. There i s no medicalevidence t hat the appell ant required si gnific ant treatment for her cardi ac condition aft er the pe riod adjudic ated. She was never refer red to a c hronic pai n special ist or a chroni c pain progr am or sub mitted to a w ork h arden ing p rogra m. Pa in can also b e con stant an d un com fortab le wit hou t bein g di sab ling
.5

The ALJ also provide d for anymental l imit ations Schomer may have had by limiting her to s imple , routine wo rk w ith limited interac tion an d stress , limitation s quite consistent with t

he report s and opini ons of Drs. Li nk, Golin, and Detore, not one of whom opined that claimant was dis abled. Appellant was never hospi tali zed because of her
com plain ts of me ntal i mp airm ent a nd s he d id n ot re gul arly us e an tidep ress ant m edic ation
. Moreover, she was i ndependent and abl e to take care of her personalneeds and, f

or much of the time invol ved in theperiod i n disput e, was the c aretaker of her y oung granddaughte r. The ALJ found that she was able to carryon her pers onal li fe without very much discomfort , inc luding cooki ng, housecl eaning, laundry , and making beds . She ackn ow ledge d that sh e cou ld lift a ga llon of milk w ithout d ifficu lty and tha t she co uld sit for a coupl e of hours at a time. Her princi pal probl em is in bendi ng, st ooping, c rouching,
or craw ling to g et bac k up once she g ot do wn . She te stified th at her p rincipa l difficu lty with her arm s wa s in pu lling an d lifting them over her h ead w ithout f eeling som e strain on her shoulders. Rec ogn izing a ll of the appe llant’s dis abilities, the AL J there fore lim ited he r ability to work with t

hose impairments to l ight work t hat coul d be performed byan indivi dual who acquired a si t or st and option; who could not cl imb; who could do no more t han occasionallyperform other postural movements; who ha d to avoid temperature extremes; who could onlyperform si mple, r outine work; which involve d limi ted cont act with the public.6

We see no erro r in the AL J’s evaluation o f the record o r in the District Cou rt’s affirmation of the Commissioner’ s decis ion. Subs tanti al evi dence support s thei r findi ngs and decisi on. II. As for the appel lant’ s complaint that s he was denied due pr ocess becaus e of the lengthy delay of the A ppeals C ouncil in dispo sing of he r request for rev iew, w e are constr ained t o rejec t it . We are dis tres sed by the undue l ength of time that the Commissioner took to dis pose of thi s appeal, but we also recognize t he overwhelming task t hat confr onts her

because of the numerosit y of appeals. The Comm issi oner repres ents t o this court t hat as of March 1997, “there were 110,152 reque sts for review pend ing at th e A ppea ls Co uncil.” T hat is an enor mo us nu mb er of c ases to resolv e w ith reasonabl e promptness . We decrythe lamentable del ay i n the dis position of thi s case, but in li ght of the resul t we have reached, the appel lant ha s not suff ered anyprejudi ce by t

he Appeals Council ’s del ay. Moreover, if there i s to be anyimprovement i n the prompt disposi tion of c ases bythe Appeals Counci l, s uch matter is for Congressional consider ation and not judi cial determi nation. Fo r the reas ons set f orth abo ve, th e de cisio n of the C om mis sion er is a ffir me d. Each side to bear its own costs.7

TO THE C LERK: Please fi le theforegoing opi nion.

/s/ Max Rosenn Circuit Judge