Perry v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-31-2005
Perry v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3578
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Perry v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1113.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1113
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 04-3578
____________
ROSALYN PERRY, For Gealine Perry,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
____________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
D.C. No.: 02-cv-00557
District Judge: Honorable William H. Walls
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 23, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, ALITO and ROSENN, Circuit Judges
(Filed May 31, 2005)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________
ROSENN, Circuit Judge.
Rosalyn Perry filed an administrative claim in 1997 in behalf of her then fifteen-
year-old daughter, Gealine, with the Commissioner of Social Security for supplemental
security income child disability benefits (“SSI”). The application was denied then and on
reconsideration. At the claimant’s request, a de novo review was held by an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in June 1999. The ALJ found the claimant ineligible
for SSI. The Appeals Council denied the claimant’s request for review of the
determination. This ruling became the final judgment of the Commissioner. Perry then
filed suit in the District Court of New Jersey which affirmed the decision of the
Commissioner. Perry timely appealed to this court. We affirm.
Because we write primarily for the parties, counsel, and the district court, we do
not repeat the facts because they are well known to the parties.
The gravamen of Perry’s complaint is that the district court erred in its finding
that substantial evidence of record supported the Commissioner’s decision that Gealine
Perry, the child for whom benefits are sought, was not disabled. She strenuously argues
that the administrative decision ignores this court’s holdings in McCrea v. Commissioner,
370 F.3d 357 (3d Cir. 2004), Newell v. Commissioner, 347 F.3d 541 (3d Cir. 2003), and
Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700 (3d Cir. 1981), requiring the ALJ to not only describe the
evidence he considered in reaching his decision, but also provide some indication of the
evidence which he rejected. The district court, however, considered this complaint and
carefully combed the record. The court concluded that the ALJ’s analysis “clearly
outlined the reasoning involved in the decision and involved a thorough examination of
all the relevant evidence and complied with Cotter.” The court also carefully reviewed
the facts on which it relied in reaching the conclusion that substantial evidence supported
2
the ALJ’s determination that Gealine’s asthma was not “severe.” We have also examined
the record and perceive no error in the district court’s conclusion.
The appellant also raises the question on appeal whether Gealine’s obesity was of
such severity as to entitle her to SSI. This issue was raised for the first time in the district
court and Judge Walls dealt with it. He saw that the claimant did not address the issue of
obesity in her complaint either with the court or in the administrative proceedings. The
claimant only raised that issue for the first time in her briefs before the district court. The
district court therefore concluded that the ALJ “properly did not include this disability in
his analysis and decision.” We believe the ALJ and the district court both committed no
error.
We see no merit in the remaining objections raised by the appellant.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Each side to bear its own costs.
3