Thomas Reddinger v. THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY On Appeal from the United States District Court…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case No: 02-3127
THOMAS REDDINGER,
Appellant
v.
THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
___________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
District Judge: The Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin
(D.C. No. 01-cv-00114E)
_________________________
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on May 14, 2003
Before: RENDELL, SMITH and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: )
_______________
OPINION
________________
SMITH, Circuit Judge
Appellant Thomas B. Reddinger appeals from an order of the District Court granting
summary judgment for the Commissioner of Social Security and affirming the denial of
his application for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. See 42
U.S.C. § 423. The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the Commissioner's decision denying

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Reddinger’s claim for benefits “is identical to that of the District Court, namely to
determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s decision.”
Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is "more than a
mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the Commissioner must follow the
sequential analysis set forth in the regulations promulgated by the Social Security
Administration. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. Under the first step of the analysis, a claimant
is not disabled if he was doing substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a).
“Substantial gainful activity” is defined as “work activity” that is both “substantial” and
“gainful.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1572. Substantial work “involves doing significant physical or
mental activities” and “gainful work” is done “for pay or profit.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1572.
Under § 404.1572, work may be “substantial” even if it is done on a “part-time basis.” 20
C.F.R. § 404.1572(b).
In this case, the Commissioner determined that Reddinger had performed substantial
gainful activity when he worked as a dispatcher from July 1997 to July 1998 two and one
half days a week and as a cashier from April 1995 to April 1996 for two to six days a week
for eight hours a day. The nature of Reddinger’s past work as a dispatcher and a cashier was
set forth in a Work Activity Report Reddinger completed in February 1999. During a
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, Reddinger confirmed that he worked in these

-- 2 of 4 --

3
positions and that he had earned an average of $702.72 per month while he was a cashier.
With respect to his position as a cashier, he affirmed that he was “hired to be a cashier and
nothing else[,]” but that he was terminated almost a year later because his employer wanted
him to perform additional work, such as stocking shelves, mopping restrooms and
shoveling snow, which was too physically demanding. In light of Reddinger’s past
employment and earnings, which exceeded the limits in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1574, the
Commissioner denied Reddinger’s application for benefits consistent with 20 C.F.R. §
1520(a).
Reddinger contends that the Commissioner’s decision is not supported by
substantial evidence because he relied upon Reddinger’s Work Activity Report and failed to
credit his testimony that his position as a cashier differed from that of the other cashiers
who performed physically demanding tasks. Reddinger’s argument is not persuasive. The
Commissioner appropriately accorded great weight to Reddinger’s employment history and
past earnings as detailed in the Work Activity Report, thereby rejecting his testimony to the
contrary. In light of Reddinger’s testimony that the nature of his job duties as a cashier
changed after a year of employment, there was no error in concluding that his employment
as a cashier constituted substantial gainful activity. Accordingly, the District Court’s grant
of summary judgment for the Commissioner will be affirmed.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.

-- 3 of 4 --

D. Brooks Smith
Circuit Judge

-- 4 of 4 --