Adams v. Comm Social Security ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-29-2008
Adams v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3902
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Adams v. Comm Social Security" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1106.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1106
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 2008 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-3902
___________
REESA ADAMS,
Appellant
v.
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-01427)
District Judge: The Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 23, 2008
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 29, 2008)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Reesa Adams appeals from the decision of the District Court affirming the
Commissioner’s denial of her claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the
Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. Because our opinion is wholly without
precedential value, and because the parties and the District Court are familiar with its
operative facts, we offer only an abbreviated recitation to explain why we will affirm the
decision of the District Court.
Adams did not dispute the ALJ’s findings, adopted by the Commissioner, with
regard to her physical impairments. Rather, she argued that the ALJ erred in denying her
claim of mental impairment. We agree with the District Court that the decision adopted
by the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence.
In the decision adopted by the Commissioner, it was recognized that Adams had a
mental impairment. Nonetheless, upon engaging the required sequential evaluation of the
evidence (20 C.F.R. §404.1520), it was determined that Adams’ impairment did not limit
her basic activities or work, and only slightly limited her in social function, concentration,
and persistent activity. See Petition of Sullivan, 904 F.2d 826, 845 (3d Cir. 1990).
Additionally, it was noted that Adams did not suffer any episodes of prolonged
decompensation related to her mental condition. These factual findings reasonably
supported the overall conclusion that Adams’ mental impairments did not significantly
limit her ability to perform basic work activities over a twelve-month period, and that her
2
impairment was therefore not “severe,” as would be necessary to support a disability
claim. See Newell v. Comm’r of Social Security, 347 F.3d 541 (3d Cir. 2003).
For all of these reasons, we will affirm the decision of the District Court.
3