Benitez v. Comm Social Security

Third Circuit

Benitez v. Comm Social Security

98 F. App'x 926

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 2004

Docket03-4380

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 F. App'x 926 (Benitez v. Comm Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benitez v. Comm Social Security, 98 F. App'x 926 (3d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Patricia Benitez suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis in her cervical and lumbar spine, aortic valve disease, and depression. She appeals from an order of the District Court affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim to Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383Í. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Ms. Benitez raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the ALJ complied with the requirements of Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, n. 4 (3d Cir.2001), and Burnett v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 112, n. 2 (3d Cir.2000), in ruling at step three that Ms. Benitez’s impairments did not meet or equal the listings of the regulations; and (2) whether the ALJ improperly evaluated Ms. Benitez’s claim that her pain is disabling.

For the reasons set forth in the thorough and thoughtful opinion of the District Court, we will affirm. The ALJ’s analysis at step three was sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Similarly, we can find no fault with the methodology *927 of the ALJ’s evaluation of Ms. Benitez’s subjective complaints of pain. In particular, the ALJ properly relied upon the testimony regarding Ms. Benitez’s extensive daily activities which constituted substantial evidence supporting his conclusion that her complaints were not entitled to full credence.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Patricia Benitez suffers from degenerative osteoarthritis in her cervical and lumbar spine, aortic valve disease, and depression. She appeals from an order of the District Court affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claim to Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383Í. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Ms. Benitez raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the ALJ complied with the requirements of Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, n. 4 (3d Cir.2001), and Burnett v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 112, n. 2 (3d Cir.2000), in ruling at step three that Ms. Benitez’s impairments did not meet or equal the listings of the regulations; and (2) whether the ALJ improperly evaluated Ms. Benitez’s claim that her pain is disabling.

For the reasons set forth in the thorough and thoughtful opinion of the District Court, we will affirm. The ALJ’s analysis at step three was sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Similarly, we can find no fault with the methodology *927 of the ALJ’s evaluation of Ms. Benitez’s subjective complaints of pain. In particular, the ALJ properly relied upon the testimony regarding Ms. Benitez’s extensive daily activities which constituted substantial evidence supporting his conclusion that her complaints were not entitled to full credence.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 F. App'x 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benitez-v-comm-social-security-ca3-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack