Ahern v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-23-2003
Ahern v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket 02-4239
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Ahern v. Comm Social Security" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 630.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/630
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 2003 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 02-4239
MICHAEL J. AHERN,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-03527)
Honorable John W. Bissell, Chief Judge
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 8, 2003
BEFORE: ALITO, FUENTES, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 23, 2003)
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
This matter comes on before this court on appeal from an order for judgment
entered on September 19, 2002, in this action in which the district court affirmed the
denial by an administrative law judge of appellant Michael J. Ahern’s request for disability
insurance under Title II of the Social Security Act. On this appeal we exercise plenary
review over the decision of the district court, see Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir.
2000), but we uphold the administrative decision if supported by substantial evidence. See
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 390, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1422 (1971). On this appeal
Ahern contends that we should reverse because the administrative law judge’s “conclusion
that [he] did not suffer a severe impairment prior to his date last insured is directly
contradicted by medical expert testimony.” Br. of appellant at 4.
Chief Judge Bissell fully set forth the background of this matter in his opinion and
in the circumstances we see no need to repeat it. Exercising the appropriate standards of
review we find no basis to disturb the order of the district court. Consequently the order of
September 19, 2002, will be affirmed.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing not precedential opinion.
/s/ Morton I. Greenberg
Circuit Judge
2