No: 02-3503 DOMINICK SINATRA v. Commissioner of Social Security

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No: 02-3503
_____________
DOMINICK SINATRA,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 01-CV-00039)
District Judge: Honorable William G. Bassler
______________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on June 16, 2003
Before: ALITO, ROTH, and HALL* , Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 18, 2003 )
_____________________
*The Hon. Cynthia H. Hall, Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
O P I N I O N
ROTH, Circuit Judge;
Dominick Sinatra has appealed the July 9, 2002, judgment of the District Court in
favor of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Commissioner had affirmed the denial
of disability benefits by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The District Court
reviewed the case and found that substantial evidence supported the decision of the
Commissioner. Sinatra then appealed to us. Sinatra contends on appeal that the decision
of the ALJ is not supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ erred in finding his
cardiovascular impairment “not severe.”
Sinatra injured his right arm and shoulder in an automobile accident on February
25, 1994, and as a result he was unable to continue work as a construction worker. In
preparing him for surgery to repair the shoulder, his physician uncovered an aortic
murmur but cleared Sinatra for surgery. After surgery, Sinatra’s physician released him
to return to work with no restrictions on March 13, 1995.
Sinatra applied for Disability Insurance Benefits on November 23, 1994. After
having his application for Disability Insurance Benefits rejected initially and upon
reconsideration, Sinatra requested a hearing before an ALJ. The ALJ granted Sinatra
Disability Insurance Benefits from February 15, 1994, through April 28, 1995. His
benefits ended on April 28 because the ALJ determined that Sinatra had regained the

-- 2 of 5 --

3
capacity to perform medium work.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard of review is
whether the District Court properly found that the Commissioner’s decision was based on
substantial evidence. Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999). “The findings
of the Commissioner . . . as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be
conclusive”. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In this context substantial evidence is defined as “such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate”. Richardson v. Perales,
402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).
Thus, if the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence the decision
must be upheld. We are not empowered to weigh evidence in order to reach a new
conclusion. Williams v. Sullivan, 970 F.2d 1182 (3d Cir. 1992).
The ALJ must set forth what evidence was considered as supporting the final
conclusion, and what evidence was rejected. See Cotter v. Jarris, 642 F.2d 700, 705 (3d
Cir. 1981). Without a statement of what factual evidence lies behind the decision and
what factual evidence was rejected, a reviewing court cannot determine if the decision is
based on substantial evidence.
In the present case, we find that substantial evidence supports the decision of the
ALJ and that the ALJ discussed the evidence in accordance with the “Cotter doctrine.”
Moreover, Sinatra did not mention his cardiovascular condition when applying for
disability benefits. He has never seen a cardiologist nor has he been treated for a cardiac

-- 3 of 5 --

4
condition. His possible cardiac problem was found in preparation for an operation and
Sinatra was “cleared from a cardiovascular standpoint” The Commissioner had no
evidence of a severe cardiovascular impairment and was justified in finding Sinatra’s
condition not severe.
Sinatra also claims that the ALJ did not detail his precise residual functional
capacity or entertain his subjective claims of pain. Sinatra, however, did not testify that
he had serious pain. The ALJ acknowledged that Sinatra testified that he had some pain
in his left arm but found that no medical record containing any complaints regarding the
left arm. With no medical record documenting this pain, the ALJ properly gave the
testimony little weight. Additionally, there must be “objective evidence of some
condition that could reasonably produce pain”. Green v. Schweiker, 749 F.2d 1066, 1071
(3d Cir. 1984). The ALJ reasonably found no objective evidence of such a condition.
Finally Sinatra argues that the ALJ misused the testimony of the vocational expert
who had testified concerning Sinatra’s ability to do light work. In view of the opinions of
multiple doctors clearing Sinatra to medium work as of March 1995, the ALJ did not need
to rely on the testimony provided by this vocational expert.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
By the Court,
/s/ Jane R. Roth
Circuit Judge

-- 5 of 5 --