2005 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 10-7-2005 

# Zurich v . C omm S o c i al S ec urity P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1103

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Zur ich v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 441. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/441

### 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 1103 J OHN T . Z UR I CH , A ppel l ant vs. CO M M I SS I ON OF SOCI AL SECU RI TY

____________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY (D . C . C iv. N o . 0 3 -C V -05 0 1 4 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Sept ember30, 2005 B efore: R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S and W E IS, C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober7, 2005)

____________ OP I NI ON W E I S, C i r cui tJ udge.

Pl ai nt i ff, now 65 y ear s of age , appl i ed fordi s abi l i t ybenef i t s undert he Soci al Secur i t yA ct . H e al l eges t hathe s uffe r s fr om hyper t ens i on, l ongs t andi ng al cohol i s m , l i verdi s eas e, l i veri m pai r m ent , and obes i t y . O n A pr i l 7, 2003, t he A L J found

### 2

th a t p lain tiff

w a s c a p a b le o f

p e rf o rm in g h is p a st re lev a n t w o rk a s a d riv e r a n d se c u rity gu ard and , on t hat basi s, den i ed b enef i t s. I n a compr ehens i ve opi ni on r evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, i ncl udi ng t he medi cal re p o rt s , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f o u n d th a t s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e s u p p o rt e d th e A L J ’s d e c is io n . W e not e thatas of A pr i l 8, 2003, t he dayaft ert he A L J ’ s rul i ng, pl ai nt i ff r ece i ved an aw ar d forfutur e bene fi t s . C ons equent l y , t he i s s ue bef or e us i s w hetherpl ai nt i ff w as ent i t l ed t o benef

i t s fr om Sept ember24, 2001 t o A pr i l 8, 2003, t he per i od dur i ng w hi ch he d id n o t r e c e iv e a n yp a ym e n ts .

W e uphol d t he Soci al Secur i t yC om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on t o denyan appl i cat i on forSoci al Secur i t ybenef i t s i f ther e i s s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tt he deci s i on. 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) ; Pl um m erv. A pfel , 186 F. 3d 422, 427 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . T he Supr eme C our thas defi ned “s ubs t ant i al evi dence ” as “more t han a mer e s ci nt i l l a” a nd as evi dence w hi ch “a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ghtacc eptt o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ” R i char ds on v. Pe r a l e s , 40 2 U. S. 38 9, 40 1 ( 19 71 ) ( qu ot i ng Cons ol i da t e d Edi s on Co. v. N LR B, 30 5 U. S. 1 9 7 , 2 2 9 (19 3 8 ).

A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded i n i t s w el l - r eas oned opi ni on, t her e w as su b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe C o m m issi o n ’s find ing . A s n o ted e arli er, th e C o u rt r evi ew ed the r ecor d i n t hi s cas e verycar eful l y . W e have done s o as w el l and s ee no r eas on t o r epea tt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s cus s i on. W e agr ee w i t h t he deni al of the pl ai nt i ff’ s appl i cat i on and es s ent i al l yfort he r eas ons s t at ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our topi ni on,

### 3

we wi l l a f

f i r m.