Joseph McDonnell v. JOANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43 (c))…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-2789
JOSEPH MCDONNELL,
Appellant
v.
*JOANNE B. BARNHART,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
* (Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43 (c))
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam
(D.C. Civ. No. 01-00035)
Argued February 27, 2003
BEFORE: SCIRICA, GREENBERG, and GIBSON*, Circuit Judges
(Filed: March 24, 2003)
*Honorable John R. Gibson, Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Eric J. Fischer (argued)
Breyer Office Park, Suite 110
8380 Old York Road
Elkins Park, Pa. 19027
Attorney for Appellant
Patrick L. Meehan
United States Attorney
Susan Skirtich
Assistant United States Attorney
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
615 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19106
James A. Winn
Regional Chief Counsel
Eda L. Giusti (argued)
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.
Appellant Joseph McDonnell appeals from an order entered May 29, 2002, in the
district court approving and adopting the report and recommendation of magistrate judge
Linda K. Caracappa dated April 24, 2002, and granting summary judgment in favor of the
Commissioner of Social Security in this disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income case. On this appeal we exercise plenary review over the decision of the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
district court, Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000), but we must uphold the
Commissioner’s decision if supported by substantial evidence. See Richardson v. Perales,
402 U.S. 389, 390, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1422 (1971). There is, however, a special situation here
in which McDonnell challenges the fairness of the administrative proceedings as he
contends that the administrative law judge who considered the case following the remand
did not decide the case on the entire record. We regard this contention as raising a legal
issue which we consider de novo. See Knepp, 204 F.3d at 83.
Inasmuch as the magistrate judge comprehensively set forth the background of this
case in her report and recommendation we do not repeat it. We have examined the record
and are satisfied that applying the appropriate standards of review we have no basis to
disturb the order for summary judgment. Consequently the order of May 29, 2002, will be
affirmed.
/s/ Morton I. Greenberg
Circuit Judge

-- 3 of 3 --