Helena Maloney v. LARRY G. MASSANARI, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c))…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No: 01-3957
______________
HELENA MALONEY,
Appellant
v.
*LARRY G. MASSANARI, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY
*(Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c))
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 00-cv-00782)
District Judge: Honorable Robert J. Cindrich
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
Helena Maloney appeals 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 found that Maloney was
capable of performing a limited range of sedentary work despite suffering minor injuries
in an automobile accident and, therefore, was not entitled to benefits. Maloney appeals
the ALJ’s determinations on the following bases: (1) the credibility of her subjective
complaints of pain; (2) the existence of a severe mental impairment; and, (3) her ability
to perform a limited range of sedentary work. The determinations of the ALJ will not be

-- 1 of 3 --

set aside unless clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).
The Social Security Act defines "disability" as an inability to work because of a
medically determinable physical or mental impairment expected to result in death or to
last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A).
Subjective complaints alone do not establish disability; the Act requires objective
medical evidence showing the existence of an impairment which could reasonably be
expected to produce the pain alleged. Id. Moreover, the ALJ may discredit a claimant’s
subjective complaint where the complaint is contrary to the evidence, Mason v. Shalala,
994 F.2d 1058, 1067 (3d Cir. 1993), and the ALJ’s determination of credibility is entitled
to deference. Fargnoli v. Halter, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001).
As an initial matter, we see no reason to disturb the ALJ’s rejection of Maloney’s
subjective complaints. The weight of the medical evidence clearly undermines her
subjective complaints. From April 3, 1995 to June 1, 1998, Maloney complained of
constant back pain. After administering numerous MRI’s, lumbar spine x-rays, EMG
studies and NVC tests, doctors found no major damage to her back. Not only did the
medical record fail to show significant damage, one doctor reported that Maloney was
exaggerating her symptoms and malingering in order to secure disability benefits. Based
upon this evidence, we conclude that the ALJ made a thorough evaluation of the
evidence in determining that Maloney’s complaints of disabling pain were not fully
credible.
Second, Maloney failed to provide the ALJ with sufficient evidence of a severe
mental impairment. A severe mental impairment limits the claimant’s ability to do basic
work activities. 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(c), 416.920(c)(2001). Maloney never sought or
received mental health treatment, nor did she report mental health impairment upon
application for DIB and SSI. In fact, when Maloney submitted to mental health
examination at the request of the state, the doctor failed to find any evidence of mental
impairment which would preclude her from performing simple work activities. This
report was confirmed by two additional doctors upon review. Therefore, Maloney’s
claim that the ALJ overlooked evidence of her mental impairment lacks merit. Clearly,
the ALJ’s determination was supported by the overwhelming evidence.
Finally, there is sufficient evidence to determine that Maloney was able to perform
a limited range of sedentary work. The ALJ employed a vocational expert to make this
determination. The comments of the vocational expert are based upon a hypothetical
question posed by the judge including all physical and mental limitations supported by
the record. Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.2d 1269, 1276 (3d Cir. 1987). Only those
complaints supported by the record must be included in the hypothetical. The ALJ’s
formation of the hypothetical question to the vocational expert was based upon a person
capable of occasionally lifting ten pounds even though one doctor reported that Maloney
could occasionally lift twenty pounds. Essentially, the ALJ had formed a hypothetical
question more favorable to Maloney clearly meeting the standard of "all physical and
mental limitations". Despite this more favorable framing, the vocational expert opined
that Maloney could perform jobs such as an assembler, a cashier, and a receptionist.
We will, therefore, affirm the judgments of the District Court denying Maloney
benefits under the Social Security Act.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.

-- 2 of 3 --

By the Court,
/s/ Jane R. Roth
Circuit Judge

-- 3 of 3 --