Edward Thomas v. LARRY G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Pursuant to F.R.A.P.…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-2435
___________
EDWARD THOMAS,
Appellant
v.
*LARRY G. MASSANARI,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
*(Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c))
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court Judge: The Honorable James McGirr Kelly
(D.C. Civil No. 00-3967)
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 16, 2002
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 23, 2002)
________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
________________________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Edward Thomas appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint
seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security
Income.
Our review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. 405(g), 1383(c)(3). This Court neither
undertakes a de novo review of the decision, nor does it re-weigh the evidence in the
record. Monsour Med. Ctr. v. Heckler, 806 F.2d 1185, 1190 (3d Cir. 1986). "We will not
set the Commissioner’s decision aside if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if
we would have decided the factual inquiry differently." Hartanft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358,
360 (3d Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is evidence that is less than a preponderance,
but more than a mere scintilla. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). That is,
it "does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence, but rather ’such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’" Pierce
v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB,
305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); accord Hartranft, 181 F.3d at 360.
We have carefully considered Thomas’s arguments in this appeal and find that
they lack merit. For the reasons substantially stated in the Magistrate’s Report and
Recommendation adopted by the District Court, we find that the Administrative Law
Judge’s ("ALJ") decision was supported by substantial evidence. In particular, we agree
with the District Court that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination to
reject the opinion of Thomas’s treating physician as contradicted by other medical

-- 1 of 2 --

evidence. The record shows that Thomas’s sarcoidosis only results in serious limitations
during the relatively rare periods of exacerbation. Further, we find no problems with the
hypothetical question the ALJ posed to the vocational expert, and agree with the District
Court that the question reflected all factors and limitations actually supported by the
record of Thomas’s individual case. We therefore affirm.
_____________________________
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judg

-- 2 of 2 --