Filed: Dec. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-16-2005 Spotswood v. Comm Social Security Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-4160 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Spotswood v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 100. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/100 This decision is brought to you for free and open ac
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-16-2005 Spotswood v. Comm Social Security Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-4160 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Spotswood v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 100. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/100 This decision is brought to you for free and open acc..
More
Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-16-2005
Spotswood v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-4160
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Spotswood v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 100.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/100
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 2005 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 04-4160
BEVERLY SPOTSWOOD,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
_______________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 03-cv-05515 )
District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on June 28, 2005
Before: ROTH, RENDELL and BARRY, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed December 16, 2005 )
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
This appeal is from the judgment of the District Court, affirming the denial by the
Commissioner of the Social Security of Beverly Spotswood’s claim for Social Security
1
Income (SSI), based on a disability. Spotswood contends that the denial is not supported
by substantial evidence.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal from the District Court’s final order
awarding summary judgment to the Commissioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). The detailed history and facts of the case are presented in the District
Court’s opinion and will only be summarized here. See Spotswood v. Barnhart, No. 03-
5515 (D.N.J. filed August 30, 2004).
Our review of the District Court’s order is plenary, but we may reverse the grant of
summary judgment to the Commissioner only if we conclude that the Administrative Law
Judge’s (ALJ) findings were not supported by substantial evidence. See Burns v.
Barnhart,
312 F.3d 113, 118 (3d Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence is that evidence that “a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Hartranft v. Apfel,
181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted).
The disability standard requires evidence of a medically determinable impairment
that is so severe as to prevent an individual’s performance of any substantial gainful
activity which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(1)(A). Spotswood
claims that she suffers from multiple ailments, including pain in her lower back and legs,
a lack of concentration, and depression, which constitute a disability and thus preclude
her from working. The ALJ determined at the hearing that although the back pain, leg
pain, and depression qualified as severe under the regulations, they did not qualify as a
2
disability because they were not impairments listed in the regulations. In addition, the
ALJ determined that, although Spotswood could no longer perform work similar to her
prior sedentary jobs, she did retain the residual functional capacity to perform light work.
See 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b). Thus, Spotswood was found not disabled by the ALJ and
she was subsequently denied benefits. That decision by the ALJ became the
Commissioner’s final decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Following the denial of benefits, Spotswood filed suit in the U.S. District Court,
seeking to overturn the ALJ’s decision. Spotswood argued that the ALJ’s decision was
not based on substantial evidence, and specifically that the ALJ committed errors at steps
two through five of the evaluation. The District Court addressed Spotswood’s arguments
and found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination. Spotswood then
filed a timely appeal.
We conclude that the ALJ’s decision that Spotswood was not entitled to SSI
benefits is supported by substantial evidence. In making his determination, the ALJ
reviewed all of the medical evidence. The ALJ noted that much of the evidence dates to
well before the alleged onset of the disability. Also, an MRI of the lower back revealed
no evidence of herniated discs, which directly contradicted Spotswood’s testimony.
Additionally, the ALJ found no objective evidence to support Spotswood’s claims that
she cannot walk by herself or stand for more than fifteen minutes. Finally, the ALJ
referred to the psychotherapist’s notes, which indicated that Spotswood had suffered from
3
single episode depression and that her recovery from that episode was enough for her to
return to work. Spotswood stopped attending the therapy sessions after she indicated that
she was returning to work on a part time basis.
Id.
The ALJ’s finding that Spotswood retained the residual functional capacity for
light work is also supported by substantial evidence and was thus proper. In addition to
the evidence noted above, the ALJ considered Spotswood’s own account of her daily
abilities and activities, and the findings of the state agency physicians who reviewed the
medical records. The ALJ then concluded that Spotswood was capable of performing
simple, routine tasks, while avoiding most contact with pollutants, co-workers, and the
public. Once the ALJ made this determination, he properly questioned the vocational
expert who confirmed that 90,000 of those jobs existed regionally, and over 360,000 jobs
existed nationally.
Because the ALJ properly considered all the evidence and because substantial
evidence exists to support the ALJ’s decision, we will affirm the District Court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner.
4