Parsons v. Comm Social Security , 101 F. App'x 868 ( 2004 )

Opinions of the United
2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-26-2004
Parsons v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-4141
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004
Recommended Citation
"Parsons v. Comm Social Security" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 680.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/680
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 03-4141
___________
TODD L. PARSONS, JR.,
Appellant,
v.
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
________________________
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
District Court Judge: The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
(Civil No. 01-cv-00878)
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 6, 2004
BEFORE: SLOVITER and FUENTES, Circuit Judges,
and POLLAK, District Judge.*
(Opinion Filed: May 26, 2004)
_______________________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________________
Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Todd Parsons, Jr., was born in 1980, and suffers from antisocial personality
disorder. From September 1995 until November 1998, Parsons received disabled child’s
benefits on the basis of his disorder, but the benefits were discontinued in November 1998
when he became an adult. Parsons applied for adult child disability benefits, but an
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied such benefits after a April 2000 hearing; this
denial was subsequently affirmed by the Social Security Administration Appeals Council and
the District Court below. Specifically, the ALJ and District Court found that Parsons was
not disabled under the Social Security Act because his impairments did not meet or
functionally equal the listed requirements for disability, and because he could perform certain
unskilled jobs in the national economy.
Although this Court exercises plenary review over the District Court’s decision, it
reviews the underlying decision of the ALJ “to determine whether it is supported by
substantial evidence.” Newell v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 347 F.3d 541, 545 (3 rd Cir.
2003). Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla, but less than a preponderance. Id.It has often been described as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” E.g., id. (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389,
401 (1971)). Put another way, substantial evidence is enough evidence to justify denial of
a directed verdict to the opposing side if the matter had gone to a jury trial. Reefer v.
Barnhart, 326 F.3d 376, 379 (3 rd Cir. 2003). Inherent to this deferential standard of review
-2-
is the rule that even if there is contrary evidence in the record that would justify the opposite
conclusion, the ALJ’s decision will be upheld if it is also supported by the evidence.
Simmonds v. Heckler, 807 F.2d 54, 58 (3 rd Cir. 1986); accord Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259,
262 (3 rd Cir. 2000).
We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the thorough and persuasive
opinion of the District Court. We add only the following to underscore our agreement with
that decision. Parsons argues that the ALJ understated Parsons’s limitations resulting from
his disorder. However, as the District Court cogently explained, Parsons offers no medical
evidence or testimony from any practitioner substantiating his alleged inability to work. To
the contrary, all of the health providers who opined on Parsons’s mental health testified that
Parsons’s disability did not preclude him from working. The only evidence Parsons offers
to show that the ALJ understated his limitations is the report of Dr. Bryan Simon, the
psychologist who conducted the psychological tests ordered by the ALJ in this case.1 Dr.
Simon’s report stated that Parsons has a “fair” ability to perform in certain areas. Parsons
contends that a “fair” ability translates to a “marked” limitation on his ability to perform in
those areas. Dr. Simon defined “fair” for the purposes of his testing as “capable of
performing the activity satisfactorily some of the time.”
Curiously, Parsons simultaneously attacks the validity of Dr. Simon’s report. Because
all of the practitioners agree with Dr. Simon’s analysis of Parsons’s limitations,
substantial evidence would have supported the ALJ’s decision even in the absence of Dr.
Simon’s report.
-3-
We agree with the District Court that this definition of “fair” falls short of describing
a “marked” limitation, and at most describes a “moderate” limitation on Parsons’s ability to
work. Since the ALJ’s Vocational Expert (“VE”) confirmed Parsons’s ability to work even
assuming moderate limitations, Dr. Simon’s report is of no help to Parsons. Similarly,
Parsons’s argument that the ALJ understated the extent of his limitations to the VE by calling
them “minimal” is unavailing: the VE’s opinion that Parsons could work would have applied
even if Parsons had moderate limitations. The ALJ properly refused to ask the VE to assume
that Parsons suffered from greater than moderate limitations because such an assumption
would have run counter to the medical evidence. Because substantial evidence undergirds
the ALJ’s denial of benefits, we affirm that determination.2
Parsons also argues that the ALJ never determined his Residual Functional Capacity
(“RFC”), but as the government points out, the ALJ explicitly stated that “claimant retains
the functional capacity to perform simple, repetitive tasks involving minimal interaction
with the public.” App. at 17.
-4-