2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

10-25-2005

Salerno v. Comm Social Security

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-4549

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Salerno v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 350.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/350
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

NO. 04-4549

 

 MARLENE T. SALERNO,

 Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

 

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Western District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civil Action No. 03-cv-01642)

District Judge: Hon. Gustave Diamond

 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

October 19, 2005

BEFORE: SMITH, STAPLETON and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed October 25, 2005)

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 
2

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:

The District Court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner in this social

security disability case. It accurately described the findings of the ALJ as follows:

After reviewing plaintiff’s medical records and hearing testimony

from plaintiff and a vocational expert, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff is

not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The ALJ found that although

the medical evidence establishes that plaintiff suffers from the severe

impairment of back pain secondary to scoliosis and mild osteoarthritis, that

impairment does not meet or equal the criteria of any of the impairments

listed at Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P.

The ALJ also found that plaintiff retains the residual functional

capacity for the full range of medium work activity. Relying on the

testimony of a vocational expert, who classified plaintiff’s past relevant

work as a waitress and cook as medium unskilled work, the ALJ concluded

that plaintiff is capable of performing her past relevant work in light of her

age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity. 

Accordingly, the ALJ determined that plaintiff is not disabled within the

meaning of the Act.

App. at A-2. The Appeals Council denied review.

Petitioner’s sole argument on this appeal, as before the District Court, is that the

ALJ improperly evaluated the medical evidence in arriving at his residual functional

capacity finding. Specifically, she insists that the ALJ erred in giving more weight to an

opinion of Dr. Kumar, a non-examining state agency reviewing psychologist, than to the

opinions of plaintiff’s treating physician, Dr. Catena, and the consultive examiner, Dr.

Jew. For essentially the reasons set forth in the thorough opinion of the District Court, we

agree that there was no improper evaluation of the medical testimony and that the ALJ’s

residual functional capacity finding was supported by substantial evidence.
3

As the ALJ explained at some length, Dr. Catena’s assessment was inconsistent

with the clinical medical evidence of record, including his own prior records. 

Accordingly, the ALJ was not required to give that assessment controlling weight. 

Similarly, the restrictions found by Dr. Jew were inconsistent with the medical evidence

of record, including the results of his own physical examination of petitioner.

The ALJ found that Dr. Kumar’s assessment was entitled to greater weight

because it was more consistent with the objective medical findings. He explained this at

some length, pointing to substantial record evidence supporting his opinion.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.