Riordan v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-29-2008
Riordan v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3358
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Riordan v. Comm Social Security" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 311.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/311
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 07-3358
_____________
DENNIS RIORDAN,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
District Court No. 05-CV-5114
District Judge: The Honorable Joel A. Pisano
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
October 23, 2008
Before: RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges,
and POLLAK, District Judge *
(Filed: October 29, 2008 )
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
*
The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge for the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
1
Dennis Riordan appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, affirming the denial by the Commissioner of Social Security
of Riordan’s application for disability insurance and supplemental security income
benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. The District Court exercised
jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Appellate jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §
1291. Our review is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence to
support the Commissioner’s decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.
Riordan worked for almost twenty years for the brokerage house of Paine Webber
as an operations specialist. He described the job as one requiring balancing and
bookkeeping, the use of computers and calculators, and careful scrutiny for mistakes. In
December of 1990, he experienced an episode of chest pain. The treatment records
indicated that Riordan was 37 years old and obese. His cardiac workup was negative for
a myocardial infarction, however, and he returned to work. In June of 1991, he
experienced another episode of chest pain. Again, a myocardial infarction was ruled out.
Thereafter, Riordan explained, he was told by his employer not to return to work. He has
not worked since that time.
The progress notes from his family physician indicate that he was treated
2
intermittently for a variety of non-cardiac problems in 1996 and 1997, an ear infection in
1998, and psoriasis in early October of 1999. In December of 1999, he was hospitalized
with cellulitis of his left leg, which responded well to intravenous antibiotics. He was
evaluated at that time by a nephrologist, Dr. Lefkowitz, because of some protein in his
urine. She ordered some additional diagnostic studies. After conducting a physical
examination of Riordan, Dr. Lefkowitz documented that he was obese, and that he
denied any joint pain, chest pain, chronic cough, or orthopnea. His blood pressure was
normotensive, and his heart rate was within normal limits. Riordan’s lungs were clear to
auscultation and his extremities were “without edema.” His left leg was noted to be
improving from cellulitis and to have some psoriatic plaques.
The record before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) does not contain any
medical records for the time period between Dr. Lefkowitz’s evaluation in December of
1999 and July of 2002, when he returned to his family physician with complaints of
psoriasis. Riordan saw his family physician again in August of 2002 because of another
episode of cellulitis of his left leg.
In December of 2002, Riordan had some cardiac studies performed. Although his
EKG had some abnormalities, his left ventricular function was assessed as 58% with
“excellent wall motion.” His perfusion study was normal. Riordan’s echocardiogram
showed normal left ventricular function and only “mild tricuspid regurgitation.” His
cellulitis required further treatment in January of 2003.
3
In February of 2003, Riordan was diagnosed with sleep apnea. A CPAP trial was
helpful in ameliorating the symptoms. At some point in May of 2003, a renal angiogram
showed possible stenosis of the left renal artery. A Captopril renogram study indicated
that there was a decreased function of approximately 30% on the left kidney compared to
the right, but no evidence of renal stenosis. Dr. Lefkowitz saw Riordan again in August
of 2003 and noted some “very mild hypertension” that was well controlled with
medication. She ordered more tests to further assess his renal status. She noted that he
was morbidly obese at 400 pounds and that “this probably limits him in his exercise
ability.” She documented in her progress notes that Riordan was not in any acute distress,
had good breath sounds, a regular heart rhythm, and some edema of the legs.
On June 30, 2003, Riordan applied for disability insurance and supplemental
security income benefits, alleging disability since 1991 due to obesity, low back pain,
chest pain, sleep apnea, kidney problems, hypertension, pain in his legs, and psoriasis.
The following month, in September of 2003, he was examined by Dr. Pollack at the
request of the State of New Jersey. The report noted that Riordan is
well-developed, well-nourished in no acute distress. He is ambulating
without difficulty. Gait is within normal limits. He has no difficulty arising
from the chair, no difficulty getting on and off the examining table and no
difficulty opening the gown for physical examination.
Riordan's heart rate and rhythm were regular and no murmurs or rubs were detected. His
breath sounds were clear. His extremities did not exhibit edema and his pulses were
present. His reflexes were equal bilaterally. His range of motion was documented as
4
“[f]ull” and his “motor examination within normal limits.” A subsequent review by a
state agency physician indicated that he could perform the full range of sedentary work.
After a hearing, the ALJ concluded that Riordan was not disabled as he was
capable of performing the full range of sedentary work and this work was compatible
with his past work at the brokerage house. Riordan appealed, arguing that the ALJ erred
at step three in the sequential analysis. He also argued that the ALJ failed to evaluate
adequately his obesity and to explain the basis for finding, at step four of the sequential
analysis, that Riordan had the residual functional capacity to perform the full range of
sedentary work.
In a thorough memorandum, the District Court disagreed and affirmed the
Commissioner’s final decision denying Riordan’s application for benefits. This timely
appeal followed. Before us, Riordan raises the same issues that he argued in the District
Court.
Consistent with our directive in Burnett v. Commissioner of Social Security
Administration, 220 F.3d 112, 119 (3d Cir. 2000), the ALJ fully discussed the evidence
at step three of the sequential analysis and explained that the evidence neither satisfied
nor equaled the criteria of impairments listed for the cardiovascular, renal, or skin system.
This analysis was sufficient for us to conduct meaningful review. Id.; see also Poulos v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 88, 93 (3d Cir. 2007). In light of the medical evidence of
record, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination
5
at step three.
We also reject Riordan’s contention that the ALJ did not adequately consider his
obesity and did not explain the basis of the finding that Riordan had the ability to perform
sedentary work. Although Riordan focuses upon the fact that he has been diagnosed with
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sleep apnea, hypertension, cardiovascular disease,
and renal disease that are attributable to his obesity, the ALJ appropriately focused upon
the extent of the limitations imposed by those conditions. The ALJ considered the
opinions of the two examining physicians, noting the lack of complaints of joint pain and
chest pain, Riordan’s normal gait, and the fact that his physical examination was within
normal limits except for his weight. The ALJ accorded great weight to the opinions of
these examining physicians in finding that Riordan had the residual functional capacity to
perform sedentary work. After reviewing the record, we conclude that there is substantial
evidence to support this finding.
In sum, we conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the
Commissioner’s final decision denying Riordan’s application for benefits. Accordingly,
we will not disturb the judgment of the District Court.