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 9-30-2004 

# R ies v . C omm S o c i al S ec ur ity 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 . 04-1218

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 . vi 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 . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" R ie s v . C omm S oc i al S e c ur it y " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 297. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/297NOT PRE CEDENT IAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT Case No: 04-1218 ROBERT RIES, Appellant

v. JOANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISS IONE R OF SO CIA L

SECURITY
On Ap peal f rom the U nited S tates D istrict Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania D.C. No. 03-cv-00851 District Judge: T he H onorab le Low ell A. Ree d, Jr.
Su bm itted Pu rsua nt to Th ird C ircu it LA R 3 4.1

September 30, 2004 Be for e: R EN DE LL , FU EN TE S an d S M ITH , Circuit Judges (Fil ed: Septe mber 30, 2004)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT
SM ITH , Circuit

Judge. Robert Ries appeals from the District Court ’s order affirmi ng the fi nal deci sion of the Com missioner of Social Sec urity denying his application for b enefits und er Title II and T itle XV I of the Soc ial Sec urity Act. T he D istrict Co urt had jurisdictio n pu rsuan t to2

42 U .S.C
. § 405 (g). W e ex ercis e ap pella te jur isdic tion und er 2 8 U .S.C
. § 1291. Our review “is iden tical to tha t of the Distric t Cou rt, nam ely to determ ine w hethe r there is substant ial e vidence t o support t he Commissioner’ s decis ion.” Plummer v. Apfel , 186 F.3d 42 2, 427 (3d Cir. 1999 ). Substantial eviden ce is “mo re than a m ere scintilla. It
mea ns su ch rele vant e viden ce as a reaso nable mind migh t accep t as ade quate to sup port a conclusi on.” Richardson v. Perales , 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (i nternalquotati on marks and citation om itted). In January 1998, Ries suffered a myocardial i nfarction, whic h necessi tate d the implant ation of

a permanent pac emaker. BecauseRies’s pos iti on as a boil ermaker enta iled h eav y lifting , he w as p reclu ded fro m re turn ing to h is fo rme r po sition
. Subseq uent stress tests, how ever, we re negative f or ischem ia. Ries’s cardiologist, D r. Carabell i, doc umented that Ries was “doing well ” and encouraged hi m to exerci se. At a heari ng before an Adminis trative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Ries asse rted t hat he was completel y di sabled bec ause of his cardia c stat us, depression, an old back i njury , and a knee impairment. The ALJ found that Ries was capabl e of performi ng light level activi tyand t

hat he di d not

have anynon- exerti onalimpairment s. Accor din gly , the ALJ app lied t he g rids i n A ppe ndi x 2 a nd c onc lud ed th at R ies w as n ot d isab led. See 20 C. F. R. Part 404, Subpt. P, Appendix 2. The Dist rict Court affi rmed. Ries conte nds that

the ALJ’s deci sion i s not supported bysubstant ial e vidence for severalreasons. He assert s that the ALJ erred by

finding t hat he was capabl e of3

performing l ight l evel work and byapply ing the grids i n Appendix 2. In Ri es’s vi ew, the ALJ failed to accord sufficient weight to the opinion of his treating physi cian, Dr. Gross, that h e w as lim ited t o lift ing obj ects of th ree to five pou nds and wa s co mp letely d isab led. In Plummer , we in structed that [t]reati ng physi cians’ report s should be a ccorded gre at weight , especi ally when their opinions refle ct expert judgment based on a continuing obs ervati on of the patie nt’s c onditi on over a prol onged period of time. An AL J may r eject a treating physi cian’s opinion out right onlyon the basi s of contr adict ory medical evi dence, but may afford a treati ng physi cian’s opinion more or less wei ght dependi ng upon the ext ent to whic h supporti ng explanations ar e provided. 186 F.3d at 429 (interna l quo tation m arks a nd cita tions o mitted ). The AL J com plied w ith this standard, acco rding great w eight to Dr. G ross’s opinion th at Ries’s ability to perform
wo rk re lated activ ity wa s lim ited b y find ing that h e w as re stricte d to ligh t leve l activ ity. Dr. Gross’s opinion t

hat Ries was abl e to li ft only three to five pounds and t hat he was
co mpl et el y di sabl ed was ap pr opriate ly di sc oun te d. The ALJ ex pl ai ne d tha t R ie s’ s o wn testim ony re gar din g w hat h e co uld lift co ntra dicte d D r. G ross ’s lifti ng l imita tion
. Alth oug h diag nostic te sting co nfirm ed tha t Ries h ad de gene rative jo int disea se of his back an d knee , the AL J noted that these conditions w ere not disabling and that D r. Gross’s records were devoi d of any compl aints of persi stent back or knee pai n. Indeed, Ries testifi ed that his back and his knee were essentially the same as when h e worked as a boilermaker before he s uffered a my ocardial infarcti on. In addition, t

he ALJ pointed out

that Dr. Gross’s opi nion confl icte d with the recommendation of

Ries’s c ardiol ogist

that heshould exercise. Light l evel activit y, theALJ concluded, was consi stent with thi s recommendati on and support ed by t he fact t hat Ri es ’s st re ss te st s we re ne ga ti ve fo r i sc he mi a. The ALJ al so ci te d the fa ct th at Ri es ’s own descri ption of hi s acti viti es indi cated that he was abl e to perf orm a wide vari etyof acti viti es. Accordi ngly , the re was subst antial evide nce to support the ALJ’s conclusi on that R ies w as a ble to per for m lig ht lev el ac tivity. The ALJ did not err

by appl yi ng the gri ds in Appendix 2 because the evi dence of record does not support a findi ng that hehad a mental i mpairment t hat res ulted i n nonexerti onalli mit at ion s. When the i mpai rmen ts caus e so le lyexerti onalli mit at ion s, theALJ is en titled to re ly on th e gr ids. See Sykes v. Apfel , 228 F.3d 269, (3d Cir. 2000). In Ries’ case, t he grids direct

a findi ng of not dis abled. In sum, the ALJ’s decis ion that Ries was not di sabled i s supported by s ubstantial evidence . We w ill affirm the D istrict Court’s judgm ent affirming the Com missioner’s denial of benefits.

______________________________________

4