Case Name: Tracey McKENDRICK, Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-19
Citations: 254 F. App'x 156
Docket Number: No. 07-1074
Parties: Tracey McKENDRICK, Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY.
Judges: Before: RENDELL, WEIS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 254
Pages: 156–156

Head Matter:
Tracey McKENDRICK, Appellant v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY.
No. 07-1074.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 84.1(a) Nov. 1, 2007.
Filed: Nov. 19, 2007.
Karl E. Osterhout, Pittsburgh, PA, for Tracey McKendrick.
Maija Pelly, Social Security Administration OGC/Region III, Philadelphia, PA, for Comm. Social Security.
Before: RENDELL, WEIS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Claimant was a thirty-two year old female when an ALJ found her ineligible for disability payments based on her diabetes, disc disease, thyroid disease, and other conditions. She is a high school graduate and had worked as a nurse's aide and cashier. She complained particularly of pain in her right leg and low back and suffers from a disc bulge at the L4-5 area. She is able to perform tasks such as driving, cooking, laundering, and cleaning. She was seen and treated by several physicians. The ALJ concluded on the basis of their records and the testimony of a vocational expert that she was capable of sedentary work with some limitations.
In the District Court, claimant contended that the ALJ did not give enough weight to the opinion of Dr. Gilchrist, who was treating claimant for pain management. The Court concluded, after a review of the physicians' records, that the ALJ properly assessed that evidence. We agree with that conclusion. Our review of the record persuades us that the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence. See Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir.1999) (stating that the standard of review for disability determinations is whether the "decision is supported by substantial evidence.").
The evidence of treatment and examinations by other physicians is consistent with the finding that claimant is able to perform sedentary work subject to the limitations set forth in the ALJ's opinion.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.