2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-26-2015

Stephen Celento v. Commissioner Social Security

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This August 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 2015 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

"Stephen Celento v. Commissioner Social Security" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 922.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/922
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 14-4147

_______________

STEPHEN CELENTO,

Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(No. 2-13-cv-00269)

District Judge: Hon. Alan N. Bloch

_______________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

June 18, 2015

Before: AMBRO, FUENTES, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Filed: August 26, 2015)

____________

OPINION*

____________

______________ 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

FUENTES, Circuit Judge: 

While working for a river towing company, Stephen Celento sustained serious 

injuries to his lungs and brain when he fell off a barge in 2004. Celento has not worked 

since the accident. In 2009, he filed for disability benefits under Subchapter II of the 

Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. After the claim was initially denied, Celento 

requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The following facts 

were presented to the ALJ.

Celento testified about his physical and mental condition in the years since the 

accident. Because of sharp pain in his knees, he can walk only about three blocks at a 

time. He can sit for an hour or more if he has room to move his legs, otherwise he needs 

to stand up every fifteen to twenty minutes. He can stand for about a half-hour. Celento 

has limited mobility with his arms and shoulders, and can lift only light weights. He has 

three titanium plates in his chest and lost forty-two percent of his lung capacity. Celento 

said that being around people makes him very nervous and he has concentration 

problems.

The ALJ heard testimony and reviewed evidence about Celento’s daily life. For 

example, he is able to drive, use public transportation, and go shopping. He volunteers at 

the local Chamber of Commerce. He is able to perform household chores such as 

vacuuming, dusting, and washing laundry. And his hobbies include reading, using his 

computer, photography, and knitting. 
3

Celento’s extensive medical records were also submitted into evidence. In 2005, 

he was diagnosed with restrictive lung disease, but his doctor encouraged him to maintain 

a regular level of activity, including exercise. In 2007, another doctor found that 

Celento’s breathing sounds, cardiovascular system, and back were normal. After 

complaining about shingles in 2009, another doctor found that Celento’s physical 

condition was generally normal. The next year, Celento informed one of his doctors that 

he “[f]eels unable to work [due] to pain in chest and back left shoulder whether sitting or

moving, [and] gets [shortness of breath] with minimal exertion.” App. 564. The doctor 

noted that Celento had restrictive lung disease and localized pain, but otherwise found his 

physical condition largely normal.

Several doctors have also assessed Celento’s mental health over the years. In the 

months following the accident, one doctor diagnosed Celento with acute stress disorder 

and post-traumatic stress disorder. Celento informed another doctor that he started selfmedicating with alcohol to ease the chronic pain in his shoulder and chest. That doctor 

diagnosed him with social phobia, alcohol dependence, and avoidant personality disorder. 

However, he believed Celento was “fully oriented,” had “no difficulty with short term 

memory,” had “no problems with concentration,” and his “[l]anguage and motor skills are 

intact”—“[o]verall, minimal cognitive impairment is noted.” App. 525.

At the hearing, the ALJ asked a vocational expert whether there are jobs in the 

economy for individuals with limitations similar to Celento’s (e.g., lifting only up to ten 

pounds at time and standing only for two hours a day). The vocational expert identified 
4

various unskilled sedentary jobs, including a ticket checker, surveillance systems monitor, 

or inspector. 

Based on this record, the ALJ determined that, when not drinking, Celento is not 

disabled. Celento appealed the ALJ’s decision to the District Court, which affirmed. On 

appeal to this Court, Celento raises one issue: he argues that the ALJ gave “undue 

consideration to his sporadic physical activities and fail[ed] to consider the proposition 

that one’s ability to put aside pain for brief periods of time while performing sporadic 

household activities does not mean that he can engage in similar activities for eight hour 

stretches, five days a week.” Celento Br. at 2.

As Celento’s challenge goes to the ALJ’s factual findings, our review is highly 

deferential. If the findings are supported by substantial evidence, they “shall be 

conclusive.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000). 

Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)

(internal quotation marks omitted). We have no trouble concluding that the ALJ’s 

decision to deny benefits was supported by the record. The ALJ considered Celento’s 

physical activities as one relevant consideration among many others in its analysis. 

Although Celento offered testimony of his pain, social anxiety, and inability to 

concentrate, his daily activities and much of the medical evidence tended to undermine 

his position. For example, Celento drives, volunteers, does work around the house, and 

has several hobbies. These activities require at least some physical exertion and mental 
5

concentration. Moreover, much of the medical evidence indicated that, although he had 

restrictive lung disease, his physical condition was generally normal. In addition, a 

vocational expert testified that someone with Celento’s limitations could obtain an 

unskilled sedentary job. The ALJ took all this evidence into account, made credibility 

determinations, and reasonably concluded that, when not abusing alcohol, Celento is not 

disabled.

For these reasons, we affirm the District Court’s order.