John M. Duff v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMM ISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY On Appeal From the United…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 03-4528
JOHN M. DUFF,
Appellant
v.
JO ANNE B. BARNHART,
COMM ISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 03-cv-00217)
District Judge: Hon. Charles R. Weiner
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 5, 2004
BEFORE: SLOVITER, BECKER and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed October 19, 2004)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant John M. Duff, Jr., appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of
the Commissioner of Social Security. Duff alleges that he has been unable to work since
April of 2001 due to chronic physical pain in his right arm resulting from his employment
as a data entry coordinator. Between May of 2000 and the conclusion of his hearings
before an ALJ in February of 2002, Duff consulted a series of physicians, was the subject
of numerous diagnostic studies, and underwent three operations. No consensus emerged
as to the precise cause of the pain in Duff’s right arm and that pain did not materially
diminish as a result of the various treatments he received. The ALJ denied Duff’s
Supplemental Security Income claim, concluding that Duff retained the residual
functional capacity to perform sedentary work with a sit-stand option. The Appeals Court
denied review.
Before us, Duff insists that: (1) the ALJ failed to give appropriate weight to Dr.
Hagert and Dr. VanSwearingen, treating physicians, and Ms. Singerman, a licensed
physical therapist who treated Duff; (2) the finding that Duff retains the residual
functional capacity to perform sedentary work is not supported by substantial evidence;
and (3) the ALJ’s rejection of Duff’s testimony regarding totally disabling pain is

-- 2 of 3 --

3
similarly unsupported.
We have carefully reviewed the opinion of the ALJ and, essentially for the reasons
given in the District Court’s thorough opinion, find each of these challenges to be without
merit.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --