Filed: Jan. 06, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-6-2004 Bowser v. Comm Social Security Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-1629 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "Bowser v. Comm Social Security" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1112. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1112 This decision is brought to you for free and open access b
Summary: Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-6-2004 Bowser v. Comm Social Security Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-1629 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004 Recommended Citation "Bowser v. Comm Social Security" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1112. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1112 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by..
More
Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-6-2004
Bowser v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1629
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Bowser v. Comm Social Security" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 1112.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/1112
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 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-1629
___________
JAMES W. BOWSER,
Appellant
v.
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
District Court Judge: The Honorable Arthur J. Schwab
(D.C. No. 02-cv-00220E)
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
October 23, 2003
Before: ALITO, FUENTES and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
(Opinion Filed: January 6, 2004)
________________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Appellant, James Bowser, appeals the decision of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania, affirming the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security that Bowser is not entitled to disability insurance
benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-
433. Our review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s final decision was
supported by substantial evidence. Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999).
We now affirm the District Court’s decision.
I.
Bowser applied for DIB on December 23, 1998, alleging disability since June 12,
1997 due to a herniated disc, constant back pain, and difficulty walking, standing and
sitting. His claim was denied at the initial and reconsideration levels of administrative
review. On February 17, 2000, a hearing was held before an ALJ, who found that Bowser
was disabled. On May 19, 2000, the Appeals Council referred the case for review on its
own motion. On September 15, 2000, the Appeals Council found that the ALJ’s decision
was not supported by substantial evidence, vacated the decision, and remanded the case to
the ALJ for further action.
After a second administrative hearing on March 14, 2001, the ALJ found that,
despite his impairments, Bowser was capable of making a vocational adjustment to a
significant number of jobs in the national economy. Therefore, the ALJ found that
Bowser was not disabled under the Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2002). The Appeals
Council affirmed this decision, making it the final decision of the Commissioner. Bowser
then brought an action in the District Court. Bowser and the Commissioner filed cross-
motions for summary judgment. On February 7, 2003, the District Court granted the
Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment. Bowser now appeals this decision.
II.
Bowser first argues that the ALJ did not base his decision on a complete record of
Bowser’s medical history because the record did not contain certain notes made by his
treating physician, Dr. Rezaian, from October 14, 1994 to November 15, 1995. Although
Bowser referred to the missing treatment notes in a footnote to his District Court brief, he
did not argue to the District Court that their absence made the record incomplete. See
Kiewit Eastern Co., Inc. v. L & R Construction Co., Inc., 44 F.3d 1194, 1203-04 (3d Cir.
1995) (upholding a district court’s finding that a party had waived an issue when the
summary judgment memorandum made only vague references to the issue); see also
Supp. App. at 27-41. We conclude that because Bowser failed to properly raise this
argument before the District Court, he waived his right to do so on appeal.
Even if Bowser had not waived this right, we cannot find that the ALJ’s decision
was based on an incomplete administrative record since the record contained several other
reports in which Dr. Rezaian summarized his findings from this period. App. at 380-81,
390-91, 430. We therefore find that, in rendering his decision, the ALJ had access in the
record to all information pertaining to Dr. Rezaian’s treatment of Bowser during the
relevant time period.
III.
Bowser also argues that, in light of the different conclusions reached by the ALJ
after the first and second hearings, the ALJ failed to adequately review the record and
explain how he weighed conflicting evidence in the second hearing to decide the issue of
Bowser’s “residual functional capacity.” We agree with the District Court, however, that
the ALJ’s final decision was based on substantial evidence.
At the first hearing, the ALJ based his finding as to Bowser’s disability almost
entirely on the medical opinion and treatment notes of Dr. Rezaian. However, the District
Court agreed with the conclusion of the Appeals Council that “the ALJ had neglected to
consider other contradictory medical evidence of record.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 7. This
evidence included testimony from a second physician, who made a diagnosis conflicting
with that of Dr. Rezaian after conducting an independent examination of Bowser and
reviewing his medical records. See Dr. Ronan Evaluation, App. at 363-64, 366-67.
Further evidence was offered at the second hearing by the medical expert, who also
disagreed with Dr. Rezaian’s diagnoses after reviewing Bowser’s medical records, and
two medical consultants from the state agency, who reviewed all of the evidence in the
file and testified as to Boswer’s residual functional capacity to lift, stand and sit. See Dr.
Balk Testimony, App. at 75-78; Drs. Ramakumar and Le Report, App. at 382-89; see also
Dist. Ct. Op. at 8-9.
The opinion of a treating physician as to the nature and severity of an impairment
is not entitled to controlling weight where it is not “well-supported by medically
acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other
substantial evidence in [the] case record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Further, an
ALJ must consider findings of state agency medical consultants as opinion evidence,
except for the ultimate determination as to whether a claimant is disabled. Dist Ct. Op. at
21, citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i). After considering all of the objective medical
evidence in the record, “the ALJ rejected Dr. Rezaian’s diagnoses and medical opinion as
to disability, and found that the weight of the evidence supported a finding that [Bowser]
was not disabled from performing light duty work with a sit/stand option.” Dist. Ct. Op.
at 9. Unlike the ALJ’s first decision, which was based solely on Dr. Rezaian’s opinions
without consideration of contradictory medical evidence in the record, the ALJ’s final
decision as to Bowser’s disability was supported by substantial evidence. App. at 397-
401. We therefore affirm the decision of the District Court on this issue.
IV.
Finally, in deciding whether Bowser would be capable of performing other
available work in the national economy, the ALJ asked a vocational expert (“VE”) to
assume a hypothetical individual with Bowser’s vocational characteristics who was
limited to light work with a sit/stand option. App. at 83. The VE testified that such an
individual would be capable of working in a variety of jobs, at either the light or
sedentary level, in the national economy. App. at 83-84. Based on this testimony, the
ALJ found that Bowser was capable of making a vocational adjustment to a significant
number of jobs in the national economy and, therefore, that Bowser was not disabled
within the meaning of the Act. App. at 22.
Bowser argues that the VE’s testimony was based on a hypothetical question that
did not reflect all of Bowser’s functional limitations. We disagree. As discussed above,
the District Court properly concluded that the record as a whole supported the ALJ’s
assessment of Bowser’s residual functional capacity. Dist. Ct. Op. at 22. The ALJ
accounted for all of Bowser’s functional limitations that were supported by the record in
his assessment of Bowser’s residual functional capacity and in his related hypothetical
question to the VE.
Under Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 431 (3d Cir. 1999), this Court held that a
VE’s testimony in response to a hypothetical question that “fairly set forth every credible
limitation established by the physical evidence” was substantial evidence of a non-
disability. Accordingly, we agree with the District Court’s reasoning that “because the
ALJ could properly rely on the state agency’s consultants’ evaluation of plaintiff’s
[residual functional capacity], . . . the hypothetical question to the VE limiting plaintiff to
light work with a sit/stand option was substantial evidence in support of his finding that
there was such work available to [Bowser] in the national economy.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 22-
23. We therefore affirm the District Court’s conclusion that Bowser was capable of
making a vocational adjustment to a significant number of jobs in the national economy
and, therefore, that Bowser was not disabled within the meaning of the Act.
We conclude that the Commissioner’s final decision was supported by substantial
evidence. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the
District Court.
_____________________________
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judge
