Michael A. Carroll v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security Administration Appeal From the…

1
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-1357
MICHAEL A. CARROLL,
Appellant
v.
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-cv-00105 )
District Judge: Honorable Kent Jordan
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
November 16, 2004
Before: ROTH, SMITH and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed December 2, 2004)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
Claimant was injured in 1990 while working as a construction-laborer.
Over the ensuing years, a number of physicians treated and examined him. In some
instances, the doctors’ reports are inconsistent. Some opined that claimant could have

-- 1 of 2 --

2
returned to work years ago, although others found disability.
The District Court remanded the case to the Appeals Council of the Social
Security Administration in August 1999. In 2000, an ALJ held a second hearing and,
again, found that claimant was not disabled and not entitled to benefits.
On appeal, the District Court again remanded, noting that the ALJ had
failed to explain the weight he accorded the opinion of Dr. LeRoy and other medical
evidence applicable to the claimant’s neuropsychological condition. Claimant has
appealed.
We have reviewed the evidence of numerous physicians, treatments and
examinations. As the District Court noted, there is “ample evidence” of non-disability;
however, the ALJ did not discuss some of the medical reports favorable to the claimant.
In the absence of that evaluation, the District Court concluded that the case should be
remanded once again.
The Commissioner contends that we should utilize an abuse of discretion
standard in reviewing this appeal. We do not find it necessary to choose either the abuse
of discretion or de novo standard of review. Under either standard, the order of the
District Court should be affirmed. There is no abuse of discretion and no error of law.
Accordingly, the order of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --