2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-15-2009

Robert Middleton v. Comm Social Security

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-2465

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

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 2009 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

"Robert Middleton v. Comm Social Security" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 101.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/101
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2465

___________

ROBERT MIDDLETON,

 Appellant

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 2:09-cv-00242)

District Judge: Honorable William L. Standish

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 3, 2009

Before: MCKEE, FUENTES and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : December 15, 2009 )

_________

 OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Robert Middleton, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) in

this disability insurance benefits case. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
Middleton subsequently amended his application to change the alleged onset of 1

his disability to May 15, 2001. 

2

I.

Because the background of this case is familiar to the parties, we discuss it only

briefly here. In June 2001, Middleton applied for Social Security Disability Insurance

benefits (“SSDI”), claiming that he had been disabled since May 24, 1995, due to, inter

alia, conversion disorder and anxiety. After his application was denied initially and on 1

reconsideration, he requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). 

ALJ Steven Slahta held such a hearing in December 2003 and subsequently issued a

decision denying Middleton’s application. In March 2006, the Appeals Council denied

Middleton’s request to review the ALJ’s decision.

In May 2006, Middleton filed a complaint in the District Court, seeking judicial

review of the ALJ’s decision. The court ultimately remanded the case, directing the ALJ

to address four issues not sufficiently considered in his original analysis. On remand, a

different ALJ – the Honorable George A. Mills, III – held a supplemental hearing and

addressed the issues identified by the District Court. In November 2007, ALJ Mills

issued an opinion denying Middleton’s application. The ALJ concluded that, although

Middleton had a history of pseudo-seizures and had suffered from major depressive

disorder and generalized anxiety disorder during the relevant time period, he “was

capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that existed in significant
3

numbers in the national economy.” (ALJ Opinion of Nov. 15, 2007, at 15.)

After the Appeals Council denied Middleton’s request for review of ALJ Mills’

decision, Middleton sought review in the District Court. In March 2009, Middleton and

the Commissioner filed competing motions for summary judgment. On May 6, 2009, the

District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. Middleton now

appeals from that order.

II.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

Although “we exercise plenary review with respect to the order for summary judgment,

our review of the ALJ’s decision is more deferential as we determine whether there is

substantial evidence to support [it].” Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000). 

“Substantial evidence ‘does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence, but

rather such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

conclusion.’” Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Pierce v.

Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)). If the substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s

findings, “we are bound by those findings, even if we would have decided the factual

inquiry differently.” Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001).

Having reviewed the administrative record, we agree with the District Court that

ALJ Mills’ decision is supported by substantial evidence. In his informal brief,

Middleton appears to argue that ALJ Mills neglected to consider his anxiety, depression,
Middleton has waived his bald discrimination claim, for he did not raise it in the 2

proceeding before the District Court. See Med. Protective Co. v. Watkins, 198 F.3d 100,

105 n.3 (3d Cir. 1999). Moreover, to the extent he criticizes the current state of SSDI

generally and advocates changes to the system, those issues are outside the scope of this

appeal. 4

and paranoia. This argument is belied by the record. Middleton also appears to argue

that the ALJ downplayed the importance of the disability ratings he received from the

Veterans Administration (“VA”). Yet for the reasons given by the District Court, we

agree that the ALJ did not err in affording the VA’s disability ratings only limited weight

in evaluating Middleton’s application. Middleton’s remaining arguments fail as well.2

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s May 6, 2009 order granting

summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner.