Staggers v. Comm Social Security , 106 F. App'x 104 ( 2004 )

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-19-2004
Staggers v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-4507
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Staggers v. Comm Social Security" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 488.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/488
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-4507
DAVID STAGGERS,
Appellant
v.
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER
OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-02593 )
District Judge: Honorable James K. Gardner
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
July 16, 2004
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
Filed July 19, 2004
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Claimant was granted SSI benefits as of March 9, 1999 when he attained
the age of 55 years. His claim in this case is for past due benefits for Social Security
Disability and/or SSI for the period beginning on December 30, 1993.
1
Claimant was born in 1944 and has a sixth-grade education. He was
previously employed as a laborer in the construction industry.
Following the standard pattern of evaluating the claimant’s ability to work,
the ALJ at the fifth step found that claimant was unable to return to his previous heavy
labor employment. After reviewing the exhibits and hearing evidence from a medical
expert, as well as a vocational expert, the ALJ determined that claimant could perform
such jobs as a light-duty hand packer or packager, a light-duty hand trimmer or cutter, and
a general laborer at both the light and sedentary levels. These findings took into account
the claimant’s need for the option to sit or stand as described by the medical expert.
The decisions of both the ALJ and the magistrate judge detail the claimant’s
medical history. We need not repeat it here. Essentially, the record established that
claimant suffers from hypertension, hypertensive-cardiovascular disease, discogenic
disease of the lumbar spine, and very limited vision in the left eye. The medical reports
noted that claimant had not been taking the medication prescribed for his hypertension.
During the hearing, Dr. Lewis testified that claimant had the ability to perform light work
with a sit or stand option.
On appeal to the District Court, the case was assigned to a magistrate judge
who prepared a comprehensive report and recommended that summary judgment be
granted to the Commissioner. The District Judge adopted the report and entered
judgment for the defendant.
2
On appeal to this Court, claimant contends that the ALJ failed to consider
the erosion of the occupational base and its significance. Claimant also argues that there
was insufficient evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that he could perform light and
sedentary jobs.
Claimant relies on Boone v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2004), where
we remanded for further proceedings. In that case, we said, “we shall not interpret SSR
83-12 to mandate reversal whenever the ALJ does not set out specific findings concerning
the erosion of the occupational base if, as here, the ALJ has received the assistance of a
vocational expert in considering the more precise question whether there are a significant
number of jobs in the economy that the claimant can perform.” Id. at 210.
In the case before us, the ALJ had the benefit of vocational expert
testimony, particularly with respect to the limitations imposed by the sit or stand option.
We conclude that Boone is distinguishable and does not control the outcome here. See
also Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 506 n.6 (3d Cir. 2004).
From our review of the record, we are persuaded that the ALJ did not err in
concluding there were a substantial number of light and sedentary jobs in the national
economy that claimant can perform.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
3