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
4-23-2004 

# M c C auley 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 . 03-2342

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_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 . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" M c C auley v

. C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 781. 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_2004/781NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-2342
JAMES MCCAULEY, o/b/o DEBO RAH MC CAU LEY, deceased Appellant

v. COMMISS IONE R OF SO CIA L SEC URI TY ADMINI STRAT ION

On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey (D.C. Civ. No. 01-04953) Honorable Dicki nson R. Debevoise, Distri ct Judge
Submitte d under Third Ci rcuit LAR 34.1(a) April 22, 2004 BE FO RE : SC IRI CA , Ch ief J udg e, an d R OS EN N a nd G RE EN BE RG , Circu it Judges (Fil ed: April23, 2004)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT
GR EE NB ER G, Circu it Judge
. This matt er comes on befor e this court on appe al from an or der ente red in t he dist rict court on March 11, 2003, affi rming a deci sion of the Commissioner of Soci al2

Security denying decedent Deborah McCauley’s c laim for disabi lit y payments. Even though Debo rah McC auley died on April 11, 1997, and her husband is prosecuting these proceedi ngs, as a matter of convenience we re fer to t he plai ntiff

-appell ant si mply as M cC aule y. The par ties a re fa milia r w ith th e fa cts so we do n ot se t them for th at l eng th. The ap pe al is unu su al in th at th e Co mmi ss io ne r c onf es se s e rr oran d r eq ue st s tha t we remand the case for further proceedings. The following pr ocedural steps were taken i n this case. McCauleyapplie d for disabi lit y benefi ts on January 18, 1995. The Commissi oner denie d her appli cati on initially and on reconsider ation f ollowing which McCauleyrequested a heari ng which was held on Jul y 8, 1996. After an ALJ made a decision t hat McCauley was not

disabl ed she suc ces sfu lly sou ght rev iew fro m th e A ppe als C oun cil w hich rem and ed th e m atter . Subs eque ntl y, on Dece mber17, 1998, the re wa s a n ew heari ng be for e a di fferent ALJ who on June 17, 1999, i ssued a new decis ion deny ing benefi ts at the second s tep of the fam iliar five-s tep seq uentia l evalu ation p roces s for d eterm ining w hethe r a claim ant is und er a d isab ility. See 20 C .F.R. § 404 .1520 ; Willi ams v. Sull ivan , 970 F.2d 1178, 1180 (3d C ir. 1992 ). M cCa uley then again soug ht revie w b efore the A ppea ls Co uncil b ut this time sh e w as no t succe ssful a nd th us the AL J’s dec ision b ecam e fina l. McCauley then i nsti tuted an acti on in the di stri ct court seeking review of the fi nal decisi on pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Eventuall y the dist rict court entered an orde r affirm ing the Co mm issione r on M arch 1 1, 200 3, follo win g w hich M cCa uley app ealed to3

this court pur suant t o 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise pl enaryreview over t he order of t

he distr ict co urt, see Knepp v. Apfel , 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000), and pl enaryreview
ove r leg al qu estio ns, see Krysztoforski v. Chater , 55 F .3d 85 7, 858 (3d C ir. 1995 ). Wh ile
we routine ly review the fa ctual c om pon ent of a dec ision o f the C om missio ner to dete rmin e if it is sup por ted b y subs tanti al ev iden ce, see Richardson v. Perales , 402 U. S. 389, 390, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 1422 (1971), that principl e is of l imit ed signi ficance here as the ALJ denied McCauley’s clai m at the se cond step of t he sequenti al eval uation process and
we are revers ing the di stri ct court ’s deci sion affirming that disposi tion and directi ng a remand to the Commissioner for further proceedi ngs. Thus, except for the fi nding at t

he first s tep o f the seq uen tial an alysis, i.e
. , McCauley was not engaging i n substant

ial
ac ti vi ty , a

fi ndi ng s he obv io us ly

ac ce pt s, we d o no t h av e fac tu al fi ndi ngs to re vi ew. The d etermination tha t we m ust make is whethe r we sh ould direct the d istrict court to order an a ward o f benef its, as McC auley urges, or w hether w e should d irect that court to reman d the case to the Com missioner fo r further proce edings, as she urges. W e are sati sfied t

hat even though there ha s been a subst antia l record developed here, stillthe record should be expanded further by the retenti on of a medical expert by the ALJ, because, as the Commissi oner acknowledges , and as our opinion i n Newell v. Commissioner , 347 F.3d 541 (3d Cir. 2003 ), makes clea r, the date of M cCau ley’s disa bility if s he is fou nd t o be disa bled is po tenti ally sig nific ant. A ppe llee’ s br. a t 12
. See also Appellant ’s br. at 43 n. 10. Moreover, the Commissione r in t he firs t ins tance4

should consider the impact of McC auley’s morbid obesity which she acknowledges is a germane fact or. Appell ee’s br . at 13. In reachi ng our resul t we point out that our opinion i n Ne we ll was not rendered before the dist

rict court’ s dispos iti on of this case and thus the parties did not havethe be ne fi t o f i t at anyst ag e o f the pr oc ee di ngs in th is ca se pr io r t o thi s appe al . I nde ed , w e had not even deci ded the earlier case of Beasich v. Commissioner , 66 Fed. Appx. 419, 2003 WL 21299604, No. 02-3627 (3d Cir. June 6, 2003) , a not precedential opi nion on which McCauley rel ies and which i s simi lar to Ne we ll , unti l aft er the di stri ct court ruled in this matter. Certainly on the rem and the C omm issioner should consider Ne we ll
. For th e fore goin g reas ons w e w ill vacate the ord er of M arch 1 1, 200 3, and will remand the cas e to thedist rict court which i n turn shoul d remand it to the Commissi oner for furt her procee dings consi stent with thi s opini on.