Felicia Pearson v. Comm Social Security ( 2009 )

Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-2-2009
Felicia Pearson v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-3760
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"Felicia Pearson v. Comm Social Security" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1591.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1591
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 2009 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 08-3760
____________
FELICIA PEARSON,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Civ. No. 2-07-cv-05581)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
March 3, 2009
Before: BARRY, WEIS and ROTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 2, 2009)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
The claimant in this case filed an application for disability payments in
2004. At that time, she had impaired vision. She subsequently underwent operations to
remove cataracts from both eyes and now has average vision. She also contends that she
suffers from asthma, various psychiatric conditions, and malnutrition.
1
The ALJ determined that claimant does not suffer from a combination of
impairments that qualify as “severe” under the Social Security Act and, consequently, that
she was not disabled pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). On appeal, the District Court
held that the ALJ’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the
denial of benefits.
After reviewing this case, we conclude that claimant has not presented any
reversible error. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that claimant did
not demonstrate “something beyond ‘a slight abnormality or a combination of slight
abnormalities which would have no more than a minimal effect on an individual’s ability
to work.’” McCrea v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 370 F.3d 357, 360 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting
SSR 85-28, 1985 WL 56856, at *3). Accordingly, we will affirm the Order of the District
Court. See id. at 360-61 (a determination that a disability claimant’s impairments are not
“severe” “is to be upheld if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole”).
2