Zurich v. Commission of Social Security

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-7-2005
Zurich v. Comm Social Security
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1103
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Zurich v. Comm Social Security" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 441.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/441
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-1103
JOHN T. ZURICH,
Appellant
vs.
COMMISSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(D.C. Civ. No. 03-CV-05014 )
District Judge: Honorable Joel A. Pisano
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 30, 2005
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: October 7, 2005)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff, now 65 years of age, applied for disability benefits under the
Social Security Act. He alleges that he suffers from hypertension, longstanding
alcoholism, liver disease, liver impairment, and obesity. On April 7, 2003, the ALJ found
1
that plaintiff was capable of performing his past relevant work as a driver and security
guard and, on that basis, denied benefits.
In a comprehensive opinion reviewing the record, including the medical
reports, the District Court found that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision.
We note that as of April 8, 2003, the day after the ALJ’s ruling, plaintiff received an
award for future benefits. Consequently, the issue before us is whether plaintiff was
entitled to benefits from September 24, 2001 to April 8, 2003, the period during which he
did not receive any payments.
We uphold the Social Security Commission’s decision to deny an
application for Social Security benefits if there is substantial evidence to support the
decision. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999). The
Supreme Court has defined “substantial evidence” as “more than a mere scintilla” and as
evidence which “a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.” Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938).
As the District Court concluded in its well-reasoned opinion, there was
substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding. As noted earlier, the Court
reviewed the record in this case very carefully. We have done so as well and see no
reason to repeat the District Court’s discussion. We agree with the denial of the
plaintiff’s application and essentially for the reasons stated in the District Court opinion,
2
we will affirm.
3