Gladys Gary v. JOANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Pursuant to…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-2132
GLADYS GARY,
Appellant
v.
JOANNE B. BARNHART,*
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
*(Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c))
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-01675)
Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, District Judge
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 17, 2002
BEFORE: SLOVITER, RENDELL, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 18, 2002)
Peter J. Pinnola
Pinnola & Bomstein
8039 Old York Road
Elkins Park, PA 19027
Attorneys for Appellant
Patrick L. Meehan

-- 1 of 3 --

2
United States Attorney
Joan Garner
Assistant United States Attorney
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250
Philadelphia, PA 19106
James A. Winn
Regional Chief Counsel
Amanda M. Kent
Assistant Regional Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration
P.O. Box 41777
Philadelphia, PA 19101
Attorneys for Appellee
OPINION OF THE COURT
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
This matter comes on before this court on appeal by Gladys Gary from an order of
the district court entered on February 25, 2002, in this Supplemental Security Income
social security disability case. The district court in its order approved and adopted the
report and recommendation of a magistrate judge dated October 29, 2001, and then granted
the Commissioner summary judgment. On this appeal we exercise plenary review of the
district court order but will accept the Commissioner’s findings of fact if they are
supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78,
83 (3d Cir. 2000).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
In this case the Administrative Law Judge reached the fifth step in the five-step
sequential evaluation process used in evaluating disability claims set forth in 20 C.F.R. §
416.920. See Burns v. Barnhart, No. 02-1091, F.3d , 2002 WL 31716291, at *3 (3d
Cir. Dec. 4, 2002). The case reached the fifth step because Gary did not have past relevant
work to which she could return, the inquiry made in the fourth step. At the fifth step the
Commissioner determined that Gary could perform work in the economy given her residual
functional capacity, age, education and work experience. While we have considered Gary’s
objections to these findings we find evidence to support them and thus we must uphold the
determination.
For the foregoing reasons we will affirm the order of February 25, 2002.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing not precedential opinion.
/s/ Morton I. Greenberg
Circuit Judge
DATED: December 18, 2002

-- 3 of 3 --