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
10-25-2005 

# S ale rno 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 . 04-4549

F o llow thi s and 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
" S ale rno v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur ity " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 350. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/350NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL
I N TH E 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
. 04- 4549
M AR L E NE T
. S AL E RN O, A ppel l ant

v. CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY

O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt Fort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D
. C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 03- cv- 01642) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. G us t ave D i amond
Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober19, 2005 B E FO R E : SM I T H , ST A PL E T O N and N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed O ct ober25, 2005)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o t he C om m i s s i oneri n t hi s s oci al securi t ydis abil i t ycase. Itaccurat el ydescri bed t he findings of the A L J as fol l ow s:

A ft err evi ew i ng pl ai nt i ff’ s m edi cal r ecor ds and hea r i ng t es t i m ony f ro m p lain tiff

a n d a v o c a tio n a l ex p e rt, th e A L J c o n c lu d e d th a t p lain tiff is notdi s abl ed w i t hi n t he meani ng of the A ct . T he A L J found thatal t hough the m ed ical ev iden ce estab li sh es th at plaintiff su ff ers f rom the s ev ere i m pai r m entof bac k pai n s econda r yt o s col i os i s and mi l d os t eoart hr i t i s , t hat im p a irm e n t d o e s n o t m e e t o r e q u a l th e c riter ia o f a n yo f th e im p a irm e n ts l i s t e d a tA pp e nd i x 1 of

20 C. F. R. , Pa r t40 4, Sub pa r tP. T he A L J al s o found thatpl ai nt i ff r et ai ns t he r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yfort he ful l r ange of m edi um w or k act i vi t y . R el y i ng on t he t es t i m onyof a voc at i onal expert , w ho cl as s i fi ed pl ai nt i ff’ s pas tr el evant w or k as a w ai t r es s and cook a s m edi um uns ki l l ed w or k, t he A L J concl uded t hatpl ai nt i ff i s capa bl e of pe r for m i ng herpas tr el evantw or k i n l i ghtof her a g e , e d u c a tio n , w o rk e x p e ri e n c e a n d re s id u a l f u n c tio n a l c a p a c ity. A ccor di ngl y , t he A L J det erm i ned thatpl ai nt i ff i s notdi s abl ed w i t hi n t he m e a n in g o f

th e A c t. Ap p . a tA- 2
. T h e Ap p e a l s Co u n c i l d e n i e d r e v i e w. Pet i t i oner ’ s s ol e ar gum enton t hi s appea l , as befor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , i s t hatt he A L J i m pr oper l yeval uat ed the medi cal evi dence i n arr i vi ng athi s r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yfi ndi ng. Speci fi cal l y , s he i ns i s t s t hatt he A L J err ed i n gi vi ng m or e w ei ghtt o an opi ni on of D r . K um ar , a non- exami ni ng s t at e age ncyr evi ew i ng ps y chol ogi s t , t han t o t he
o p inion s o f p lai n ti ff ’s trea ti n g p h y sici an , D r. C aten a, an d the c o n su lt ive e x am iner, D r. J e w. F o re s s e n t i a l l yt h e r e a s o n s s e tf o r t h i n t h e t h o r o u g h o p i n i o n o f t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , we ag ree that there w as n o im p rop er e v alua ti o n o f th e m ed ical t esti m o n yan d that the A L J’s
r es i dual funct i onal capa ci t yfi ndi ng w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence
.3

A s t he A L J expl ai ned ats om e l ength, D r . C at ena’ s as s es s m entw as i ncons i s t ent
w ith th e c lin ic a l m e d ic a l e v id e n c e o f re c o rd , in c lu d in g h is o w n p ri o r r e c o rd s . A c c o rd in g ly, th e A L J w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to g iv e th a t a s s e s s m e n t c o n tr o llin g w e ig h t. Si m i l ar l y , t he r es t r i ct i ons found byD r . J ew w er e i ncons i s t entw i t h t he medi cal evi dence
o f re co rd, i n clud ing the re su lt s o f h is ow n p h y sical ex am ination o f p eti ti o n er. T he A L J found thatD r . K um ar ’ s as s es s m entw as ent i t l ed t o gr eat erw ei ght beca us e i tw as m or e cons i s t entw i t h t he obj ect i ve medi cal fi ndi ngs . H e expl ai ned thi s at
s om e l ength, poi nt i ng t o s ubs t ant i al r ecor d evi dence s uppor t i ng hi s opi ni on. T he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.