D'Aurelio v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Docket: No. 01-3346
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; June 6, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
The court affirms the denial of Edward D’Aurelio's application for disability benefits. At fifty-four years old, D’Aurelio, a college graduate with a Master's in Music Education and a lengthy career as a high school music teacher, applied for benefits in May 1997, claiming his disability began in February 1996. His medical issues included chest pain, kidney stones, sciatic nerve problems, and an adjustment disorder with anxiety.
D’Aurelio was treated by several doctors, including Dr. James Joye and cardiologist Dr. Edward McDowell, who performed an EKG that showed no significant changes but concluded D’Aurelio could not return to teaching without explaining his reasoning. Other specialists, including Dr. Rogelio Vega, who removed a kidney stone, and Dr. Brent Ednie, who diagnosed coronary artery disease, also commented on his ability to work. However, a psychologist, Vito Dongiovanni, reported D’Aurelio had good mental functioning despite an adjustment disorder with anxiety.
Functional capacity assessments by Dr. Timothy Finch and Dr. Theodore Waldron indicated D’Aurelio could perform medium to light work with some limitations. A neurologist, Dr. John Moossy, found no chest pain and stable coronary artery disease. After undergoing surgery in November 1997, D’Aurelio was cleared to gradually return to activities like bowling.
In December 1997, Dr. Durre Ahmed noted some physical limitations but also that D’Aurelio could ride a stationary bike for an extended period. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) consulted a vocational expert, who identified numerous jobs suitable for D’Aurelio’s qualifications and limitations. Consequently, the ALJ ruled that D’Aurelio was not disabled. Following the Appeals Council's denial of a review, the District Court upheld the ALJ’s decision. The standard for review is based on whether the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence, defined as evidence a reasonable mind could accept as adequate.
D’Aurelio contends that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to adequately credit his pain complaints; however, the ALJ determined that D’Aurelio could still perform substantial gainful activity despite his pain, a decision supported by substantial evidence and within the ALJ's discretion. According to 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(a), the evaluation of functional limitations due to pain requires alignment with medical signs and other evidence. D’Aurelio challenges the ALJ's finding that he could perform light work, citing Drs. Ahmed and McDowell's opinions that he was limited to sedentary work. The ALJ's decision is upheld since treating doctors' unsupported functional capacity assessments are not definitive under 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(e)(1). The ALJ properly assessed the entire record, concluding D’Aurelio could perform light work with limitations. D’Aurelio also argues the ALJ's finding of available suitable jobs in the national economy is unsubstantiated due to the perceived insufficient number of jobs utilizing his transferable skills. However, per 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(f)(1), an applicant is not deemed disabled if sufficient jobs exist. A vocational expert testified that over 500,000 unskilled jobs were available for D’Aurelio. Consequently, substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to deny disability benefits under 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(f). Additionally, at the relevant time, D’Aurelio was classified as a 'person closely approaching advanced age,' as defined by 20 C.F.R. 404.1563(d), which includes individuals aged 50 to 54. The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.
