Linda S. Penman v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY On Appeal from the United States District Court for…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 03-1500
__________
LINDA S. PENMAN,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
__________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 01-cv-01963)
District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond
__________
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 24, 2003
BEFORE: ALITO, FUENTES, and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed November 4, 2003)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
Becker, Circuit Judge.
Linda Penman appeals from the grant of summary judgment by the District Court
affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security on the grounds that
substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Penman could perform the limited range of light work identified by the vocational expert
on and before December 31, 1997, when her insured status expired. We agree, hence we
will affirm. We will not detail the extensive medical history which, at all events, is well
known to the parties. We will limit our discussion to the declaration that we agree with
Judge Diamond’s discussion and the following observations.
The principal gravamen of the appeal, as set forth in Penman’s summary of
argument, is that:
In reaching the conclusion, the ALJ chose to rely on the vocational experts
[sic] answer to the only hypothetical question which did not include the
significant limitations which the Appellant suffered as a result of the post-
traumatic syndrome, degenerative disc disease, cervical radiculopathy,
chronic left knee pain and hyperextension of the knee. The medical
evidence from the work capacity forms indicated that the Appellant can
only perform work conditions for four hours per day, with restrictions on
use of left foot for repetitive motion. The work capacity form also states
that the Appellant is not able to climb, crawl, kneel or squat, frequently
bend, reach and twist.
We have, however, scrutinized the reports of Drs. Booker, Felder, and Herbert, and those
of the physical therapist, Mr. Holzworth, and conclude that they do not support Penman’s
version of the proper predicate for the hypothetical question. Instead, we are satisfied that
the record supports the ALJ’s conclusion that, although Penman could no longer perform
her past relevant work as a mill worker because she cannot lift heavy objects or stay in
one position for prolonged periods, she could nevertheless perform a limited range of
light work on and before December 31, 1997, including work as a billing clerk, inspector

-- 2 of 4 --

3
of compliance, and accounts clerk, all of which exist in substantial numbers in the
economy.
We also reject Penman’s second claim – that the ALJ did not consider certain
medical reports of Drs. Herbert, Felder and Booker and the affidavit of Denise Reiter.
Rather, we are satisfied that the ALJ considered all relevant medical evidence. The
matters about which Penman complains were either not properly part of the
administrative record and/or were not time relevant (they were either before or after the
eligibility period and shed no light on the relevant period). At all events, the ALJ
developed a fully adequate record for his decision.
The judgment will be affirmed.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/Edward R. Becker
Circuit Judge

-- 3 of 4 --

4

-- 4 of 4 --