Harold J. Bailey v. LARRY G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Pursuant to F.R.A.P.…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-2539
___________
HAROLD J. BAILEY,
Appellant
v.
*LARRY G. MASSANARI,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security
*(Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c))
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
District Court Judge: The Honorable D. Brooks Smith
(D.C. Civil No. 00-127J)
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
January 16, 2002
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 25, 2002)
________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
________________________ FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiff Harold J. Bailey appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his complaint
seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
denying his application for Supplemental Security Income.
Our review is limited to determining whether the Commissioner’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. 405(g), 1383(c)(3). This Court neither
undertakes a de novo review of the decision, nor does it re-weigh the evidence in the
record. Monsour Med. Ctr. v. Heckler, 806 F.2d 1185, 1190 (3d Cir. 1986). "We will not
set the Commissioner’s decision aside if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if
we would have decided the factual inquiry differently." Hartanft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358,
360 (3d Cir. 1999). Substantial evidence is evidence that is less than a preponderance,
but more than a mere scintilla. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). That is,
it "does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence, but rather ’such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’" Pierce
v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB,
305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)); accord Hartranft, 181 F.3d at 360.
We have carefully considered Bailey’s arguments in this appeal and find that they
lack merit. For the reasons substantially stated in the well-reasoned and thorough opinion
of Judge Smith, we find that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence
and we therefore affirm.

-- 1 of 2 --

_____________________________
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/Julio M. Fuentes
Circuit Judg

-- 2 of 2 --