Amadeo v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinions of the United
2002 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-31-2002
Amadeo v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 01-4249
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
Recommended Citation
"Amadeo v. Comm Social Security" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 695.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/695
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 2002 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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: 01-4249
_______________
SALVATORE AMADEO,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 99-cv-04073)
District Judge: John W. Bissell, Chief Judge
_________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on July 29, 2002
Before: BECKER, Chief Judge, ROTH
AND RENDELL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 31, 2002)
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
Salvatore Amadeo appeals from a final order of judgment of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. Amadeo challenges the District Court’s
affirmance of the Social Security Commissioner’s decision to deny him Social Security
benefits. As the basis of his appeal, Amadeo contends that there is insufficient evidence to
uphold the ALJ’s holding that Amadeo could perform light work.
The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We have
appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is limited to determining
whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision. See 42
U.S.C. §405(g) and Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F. 3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999). Substantial
evidence has been defined as more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance of
evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.
Id. citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). We find that the
Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
In determining such a claim for Disability Insurance Benefits, the Commissioner
follows a five-step analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. In doing so, the Commissioner
considers: (1) whether the claimant is engaging in substantial gainful activity, (2) whether
the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment, (3) whether the claimant’s impairment
meets or equals the requirements of a listed impairment, (4) whether the claimant has the
2
inability to return to his past work, and (5) if not, whether the claimant can perform any
other work available in the national economy. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (a)-(f).
Amadeo argues that the ALJ, in following this five-step process, failed to recite
sufficient indications of his rejection of appellant’s claim as required by the Cotter
Doctrine. See Cotter v. Harris, 642 F. 2d 700, 705 (3d Cir. 1981) (“We need from the
ALJ not only an expression of the evidence s/he considered which supports the result, but
also some indication of the evidence which was rejected”). Amadeo specifically argues that
the ALJ did not give the proper weight to the evidence of Amadeo’s psychologist and that
the ALJ erroneous failed to consider Amadeo’s subjective complaints.
An ALJ, however, in reviewing the evidence presented, need not give controlling
weight to a medical opinion unless it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical
and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial
evidence in [the] case record.’” Cotter v. Harris, 642 F. 2d 700, 704 (3d Cir. 1981); see
also Fargnoli v. Halter, 247 F. 3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001); Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F. 3d
422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999). We find that the ALJ properly explained his decision based on
the substantial evidence found.
Amadeo also contends that the ALJ erroneously rejected his subjective complaints.
However, subjective complaints must be supported by some objective medical evidence.
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999). Here,
the ALJ determined that the record failed to support Amadeo’s allegations that obstructive
pulmonary disease prevented all substantial gainful activity on or before December 31,
3
1990. From our review of the record for substantial evidence to support this
determination, we conclude that the ALJ met his duty as a fact-finder.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
4
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
By the Court,
/s/ Jane R. Roth
Circuit Judge
5