Juana Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security Appeal From the United States District Court for the…

* The Honorable Louis H. Pollak, District Judge, United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-2540
JUANA HERNANDEZ,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
D.C. Civil No. 00-cv-05882
District Judge: The Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 8, 2004
Before: BARRY, SMITH, Circuit Judges, and POLLAK,* District Judge
(Opinion Filed: January 30, 2004)
OPINION

-- 1 of 5 --

2
BARRY, Circuit Judge
Plaintiff Juana Hernandez appeals from an order of the District Court for the
District of New Jersey affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying her claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income (“SSI”). We will affirm.
We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We must
affirm the District Court if it correctly found the Commissioner’s decision to be supported
by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d
Cir. 1999). It has long been understood that by substantial evidence, we do “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 Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S.
197, 229 (1938)). We must determine whether, in light of the entirety of the record, the
Commissioner’s conclusions are rational. Gober v. Matthews, 574 F.2d 772, 776 (3d Cir.
1978) (recognizing “the court’s ‘duty to scrutinize the record as a whole to determine
whether the conclusions reached are rational.’”) (citation omitted).
To determine whether a claimant qualifies for benefits, the Commissioner must
consider, in sequence: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful
activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether the
severe impairment meets or equals the criteria of an impairment listed in the Social

-- 2 of 5 --

1See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app.1. 1
3
Security Administration Regulations;1 (4) if not, whether the claimant’s impairment
prevents the performance of past relevant work; and (5) if so, whether the claimant can
perform any other work in the national economy, given the claimant’s age, education,
experience, and health. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 428 (3d
Cir. 1999).
As we are writing only for the litigants – who are intimately familiar with the
record – we do so without extensive recitation of the facts. At root, Hernandez contests
the decision of the Commissioner in five regards. She asserts that the Commissioner (1)
improperly omitted material, probative evidence; (2) prioritized her own medical opinions
over those of examining, treating, and reviewing physicians; (3) erred in assessing
Hernandez’s past relevant work; (4) unjustifiably determined Hernandez’s residual
functional capacity (“RFC”); and (5) mistakenly rejected Hernandez’s subjective
complaints.
First, Hernandez asserts that the Commissioner, in failing to discuss in detail every
piece of medical evidence, transgressed this Court’s Cotter doctrine. In Cotter v. Harris,
642 F.2d 700 (3d Cir. 1981), we held that an explanation of the evidence must accompany
the benefits determination. Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d at 704-05. We have also
articulated the logic of the Cotter doctrine: to facilitate “meaningful judicial review.”
Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 119 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Cotter,

-- 3 of 5 --

4
642 F.2d at 704-05). The Commissioner need not undertake an exhaustive discussion of
all the evidence. See, e.g., Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000). And where we
can determine that there is substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision,
as we determine here, the Cotter doctrine is not implicated.
Second, we cannot conclude that when the Commissioner determined that
Hernandez’s mental impairment was not severe, she prioritized her own medical opinions
over those of Hernandez’s physicians; indeed, there is substantial evidence that
Hernandez suffered only from minor depression or an adjustment disorder and
experienced no work related limitations arising out of her mental condition. Clearly, the
final decision as to whether Hernandez’s mental condition is severe rests with the
Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (“the final responsibility for deciding these
issues [i.e., severity] is reserved to the Commissioner”). Her decision in the negative is
supported by substantial evidence.
Third, Hernandez’s past relevant work was as a packer. None of her diagnoses
precluded medium level work activities. Packing, as described by Hernandez in her
testimony and from her own experience, falls well within the description of medium
work. Again, the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Fourth, the Commissioner did not err in determining Hernandez’s RFC. The RFC
derives directly from the medical evidence, which supports a determination that
Hernandez could, despite her impairments, perform the tasks that constitute medium level

-- 4 of 5 --

work activities.
Finally, while the Commissioner must seriously consider a claimant’s subjective
complaints of pain, see Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968 (3d Cir. 1981), it is within the
Commissioner’s discretion to weigh such complaints against the medical evidence, and to
reject them. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Hernandez admitted in her testimony that her
medication, when properly taken, adequately controls her pain. Moreover, none of the
medical opinions in the record justifies the complete inactivity to which Hernandez
testified. Given the evidence in the record, we cannot fault the Commissioner’s treatment
of Hernandez’s complaints of pain.
The judgment of the District Court affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny
benefits will be affirmed.
/s/ Maryanne Trump Barry
Circuit Judge

-- 5 of 5 --