Jennifer M. Lingenfelter 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
N0. 01-2732
JENNIFER M. LINGENFELTER,
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 Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-000102)
District Judge: Honorable D. Brooks Smith, Chief Judge
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 24, 2002
BEFORE: NYGAARD, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges,
and SLEET, District Judge*
(Opinion filed February 5, 2002 )
__________________________________
* Honorable Gregory M. Sleet, United States District Judge for the District of Delaware,
sitting by designation.
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Jennifer M. Lingenfelter applied for supplemental security income
alleging disability due to depression, learning disability, and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder. The ALJ found that she has impairments consisting of depression,
borderline intellectual functioning, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. While
"severe," none of these impairments or combinations thereof were found to meet the
criteria described in Listing 12.00, Mental Disorders, or any other listed impairments. The
ALJ did find that Lingenfelter could not return to her past relevant work sandwich
maker. Nevertheless, she was found to retain "the residual functional capacity to perform
a wide range of simple, routine and repetitive work activity at all exertional levels of

-- 1 of 2 --

activity [so long as she avoids] work with excessive stress, public contact and significant
interaction with coworkers." App. 17. Based on the testimony of a vocational expert, the
ALJ found that given this residual functional capacity, her age and educational
background, she is capable of making an adjustment to work which exists in significant
numbers in the local and national economies.
The Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ’s denial of benefits and the District Court
granted summary judgment to the Commissioner. We will affirm that judgment
essentially for the reasons set forth in the thorough Magistrate Judge’s Report and
adopted by the District Court.
We must affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it is supported by substantial
evidence. 42 U.S.C. 405(g). We conclude that it was.
The ALJ and the Commissioner determined that Lingenfelter did not have marked
limitations in her functional abilities as required by paragraphs 12.04B and 12.05B of the
Listings. While Lingenfelter testified that she withdraws during periods of depression
and stays at home without dressing or bathing, there was conflicting evidence of frequent
contact with family, friends and mental status reports that consistently characterized her
as communicative, oriented and motivated. None of the medical evaluations indicated
that her concentration deficiency met the level required by the listings and there was
evidence that she had been able to hold down a job for a year as a sandwich maker.
Given the conflicting evidence, the Commissioner permissibly concluded that
Lingenfelter had only slight restrictions in her social functioning abilities.
Similarly, the evidence relevant to Lingenfelter’s residual functional capacity was
in conflict and the ALJ chose to discount her testimony because it was not substantiated
by the medical assessments or diagnostic reports and was inconsistent with much of the
evidence concerning her daily habits. Contrary to Lingenfelter’s argument, the ALJ’s
hypothetical question to the vocational expert was supported by record evidence and the
expert’s response provided substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s ultimate
decision.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ Walter K. Stapleton
Circuit Judge

-- 2 of 2 --