Kathy Ismail v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY On Appeal From the United States District Court For…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-5385
KATHY ISMAIL
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 04-cv-02615)
District Judge: Hon. William G. Bassler
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 9, 2006
BEFORE: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, McKEE and STAPLETON,
Circuit Judges
( Filed: November 15, 2006 )

-- 1 of 3 --

2
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Kathy Ismail, the claimant in this social security disability proceeding, was injured
in an automobile accident. She claims disability beginning on the date of that accident,
August 25, 1999. Her injuries included a cerebral concussion, a fractured mandible, a
fractured clavicle and injuries to her left knee and right foot. She also experienced neck,
back, facial and temporomandibular joint impairments.
After a second hearing, the ALJ found that while Ismail became disabled on
August 25, 1999, she sufficiently recuperated thereafter so that she was not entitled to
disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income payments as of September
1, 2000. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the final
decision of the Commission. Ismail then filed an action in the District Court seeking
review. The District Court affirmed, and this timely appeal followed. We will affirm the
judgment of the District Court for essentially the same reasons set forth in its thorough
opinion.
More specifically, we agree with the District Court that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s findings both: (1) that Ismail’s mental impairments were not “severe”
under step two of the required sequential analysis; and (2) that Ismail’s “severe”

-- 2 of 3 --

We also agree with the District Court that the ALJ here acted entirely in accordance1
with Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000), by seeking the expertise of a vocational
expert to determine whether an individual capable of sedentary work but possessing
Ismail’s nonexertional limitations could still perform jobs available in significant
numbers in the national economy.
3
impairments did not meet or equal the requirements of any listed impairment under step
three. Contrary to Ismail’s suggestion, we find the ALJ’s articulation of his step three
analysis sufficient to permit meaningful review in accordance with Burnett v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2000).
Ismail’s primary complaint concerns the ALJ’s conclusion that she had the residual
capacity to perform sedentary work after September 1, 2000. There is substantial
evidence to support this conclusion as well, however, and there is little we can add to the
analysis of the District Court on this issue. We observe only that we find no medical
evidence based on clinical observations after September 1, 2000, which would indicate
that Ismail did not have the residual capacity to do sedentary work. Moreover, as the ALJ
explained, Dr. Fechner’s clinical observations indicated that she would no longer be
disabled when she recuperated from her June 2000 arthroscopic knee surgery, and Dr.
Kahng’s clinical observations regarding her limitations as of December 2000 indicated
that she then had the capacity to do sedentary work.1
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --