Andrea P. Orbin v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (Pursuant to F.R.A.P 43(c)(2))…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No: 01-4182
_______________
ANDREA P. ORBIN,
Appellant
v.
*Jo Anne B. Barnhart, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY
*(Pursuant to F.R.A.P 43(c)(2))
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 00-cv-00257)
District Judge: Honorable D. Brooks Smith
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on May 1, 2002
Before: NYGAARD, ROTH
and WEIS, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed : June 28, 2002 )
O P I N I O N
ROTH, Circuit Judge,
Andrea Orbin challenges the decision of the District Court affirming the ALJ’s
finding that she was not entitled to disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental
security income (SSI) under the Social Security Act. The ALJ determined that she was
capable of performing light work, despite complaints of degenerative arthritis, heart
disease and emphysema. Orbin appeals on the following bases: (1) the ALJ failed to
grant substantial weight to the diagnoses of treating physicians, and (2) the substantial
evidence failed to support the ALJ’s finding that Orbin could perform light work. The
determinations of the ALJ will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P.
52(a). We will not disturb the findings of the ALJ because we find no clear error.
First, the ALJ acknowledged that the medical evidence supported the diagnoses of

-- 1 of 2 --

chronic low back pain, fibromyaglia, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease. Nonetheless, a diagnosis alone fails to validate the
severity of an impairment. The ALJ must consider the extent to which a claimant’s
symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence
and other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). Accordingly, an
ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine their
impact on a claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). Such
credibility determinations as to a claimant’s testimony regarding pain and other
subjective complaints are for the ALJ to make. Van Horn v. Schweiker, 717 F.2d 871,
873 (3d Cir. 1983).
The ALJ noted physical and mental findings reported by four separate physicians.
One doctor reported Orbin’s ability to easily move her body with full range of motion
and strength in all extremities. Another doctor reported that Orbin had normal station
and gait and could move on and off the examination table without any difficulty. A third
doctor advised Orbin to start an exercise regimen for general conditioning and mitigation
of pain; however, no evidence of exercise or physical therapy was provided. Finally, a
fourth doctor found no mental problems citing Orbin’s ability to subtract from 100 using
intervals of seven. In light of the medical evidence, the ALJ properly determined that
Orbin’s complaints of debilitating pain were inconsistent with the findings of her treating
physicians despite the various diagnoses.
Second, the ALJ must accommodate only those physical limitations supported by
the record in determining a claimaint’s residual functioning capacity (RFC). Chrupcala
v. Heckler, 829 F.2d 1269, 1276 (3d. Cir. 1987). Once again, the relevant consideration
is not the fact that Orbin has been diagnosed, but rather to what extent her illness causes
functional limitations. See Tsarelka v. Secretary of HHS, 842 F.2d 529, 534 (1st Cir.
1988) (holding that the mere presence of fibrositis did not entitle the plaintiff to disabilit
benefits).
Orbin relies on the diagnosis of fibromyalgia to assert that she is totally
incapacitated, but doctors have found absolutely no medical evidence to support this
assertion. Therefore, relying on the medical evidence presented by the treating
physicians, the ALJ limited Orbin to light work that involves standing or walking of up
to only three hours in an eight-hour work day and accommodates postural limitations
with a sit/stand option. The ALJ employed a vocational expert to determine that Orbin
was capable of performing jobs such as an unarmed guard, document preparer, and
telephone services worker. Accordingly, the ALJ properly relied upon this testimony in
determining Orbin’s residual functioning capacity. 20 C.F.R. 404.1566(e),
416.966(e). We will, therefore, affirm the judgement of the District Court
denying Orbin benefits under the Social Security Act.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
By the Court,
/s/ Jane R. Roth
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --