Carrol Mazur v. LARRY G. MASSANARI, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(C)) On…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
N0. 01-3999
CARROL MAZUR
Appellant
v.
*LARRY G. MASSANARI, 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 Crim. No. 01-cv-00037)
District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lancaster
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 3, 2002
BEFORE: ROTH and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK,* District Judge
(Opinion filed: May 17, 2002)
OPINION OF THE COURT
________________________
* Honorable Louis H. Pollak, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Carrol Mazur applied for social security disability benefits based on
pain in her back and legs resulting from an injury at work. The ALJ made the following
findings:
Based on the medical evidence, I find that the claimant has
degenerative disc disease, which is an impairment causing
significant vocationally relevant limitations. The claimant
has no impairment, however, which meets the criteria of any
of the listed impairments described in Appendix 1 of the
Regulations (20 C.F.R., Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1).
No treating or examining physician has mentioned findings
equivalent in severity to the criteria of any listed impairment.
Since the claimant scored a valid IQ of 84 on testing, the
claimant’s mental capacity is in the low average range and is
considered not severe. The record does not support a finding
that claimant cannot perform unskilled work (20 C.F.R.
404.1568).
I must next determine the claimant’s residual functional
capacity, a term which describes the range of work activities

-- 1 of 3 --

the claimant can perform despite her impairment. After
considering all the evidence, I find that the claimant retains
the residual functional capacity to perform the exertional
demands of light work which permits alternate sitting and
standing in 15 minute intervals, with lumbar flexion not
greater than 60 degrees, lumbar extension not greater than 15
degrees, and lumbar lateral bending not greater than 15
degrees.
App. 14-15.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. As the ALJ
explained:
. . . I have given weight to the report from the claimant’s
treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Neuwith (SSR 96-2p), and to
the evaluation of Dr. Marryshow, who is also a orthopedic
surgeon. Although Dr. Neuwith did not offer an opinion on
the claimant’s ability to work, the residual functional capacity
established is completely consistent with his findings and
those of Dr. Marryshow, both of whom have superior medical
credentials. Although the state agency medical consultant
concluded that the claimant could perform work of even a
higher level of exertion, I have given the claimant the benefit
of the doubt and limited the claimant to a maximum exertion
of light (SSR 96-6p).
In assessing the claimant’s residual functional capacity,
consideration was given to subjective allegations (20 C.F.R.
404.1529), however, in general, claimant’s statements
concerning her impairment and its impact on her ability to
work are not entirely credible. The claimant’s testimony
about her physical limitations is not consistent with the
medical evidence which generally shows no significant
herniation or root impingement. She takes no prescription
pain medication and relies on over-the-counter type drugs.
On examination, she showed no evidence of muscle spasms,
no sensory deficits, no weakness nor atrophy of muscles and
had a normal gait. She reportedly keeps an apartment, drives,
and does simple cooking and cleaning for herself. She is
independent in personal care and can dress herself without
assistance (Exhibit 8F). As noted, she does [not] take
prescription medication for pain.
In her former job as a cashier, the claimant was not required
to lift more than 20 pounds. The impartial vocational expert
offered testimony indicating that an individual with the
claimant’s residual functional capacity could perform the type
of work she performed in the past as a cashier. Because
claimant’s past work did not require the performance of work
activities precluded by her medically determinable
impairment, she is able to return to the type of work she
performed in the past. The vocational expert also cited other
jobs the claimant could perform as well. I note the opinion of
Dr. Kunkle, discussed above, that claimant could not return
to her past work without restriction. However, I also note
that the opinion was given over only a four month period in
1997 and was not repeated after that. I find, based on the
medical evidence, that the opinion of the vocational expert
was valid, and I adopt it.

-- 2 of 3 --

App. 15-16.
The decision of the ALJ was affirmed by the Appeals Board and the District Court
entered summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner. We will affirm.
Contrary to appellant’s suggestion, the ALJ did not reject Dr. Kunkle’s opinion
without explanation. He pointed out that Dr. Kunkle’s opinion was that Mazur could not
return to her prior job "without restrictions" and that his opinion covered a limited period
of time in 1997. He further explained that the residual functional capacity that he found
was consistent with the clinical observations of Drs. Neuwith and Marryshow, both of
whom had superior medical credentials.
Similarly, we cannot agree with appellant’s view that the ALJ failed to adequately
consider the evidence regarding her pain. As is apparent from the above-quoted
explanation of his conclusion, there is substantial record support for the finding that
appellant’s testimony about her pain and its impact on her ability to work was not entirely
credible.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Not Precedential Opinion.
/s/ Walter K. Stapleton
Circuit Judge

-- 3 of 3 --