Cedric Galette v. Commissioner Social Security

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: RESTREPO, SCIRICA and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 6. Galette's motion to treat as his appellate brief the document docketed on June 5, 2017, is granted, and his motion for appointment of counsel on appeal is denied.

Case: 17-1903

Document: 003112724885

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/13/2017

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 17-1903
___________
CEDRIC GALETTE,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-15-cv-05636)
District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 1, 2017
Before: RESTREPO, SCIRICA and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 13, 2017)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
Cedric Galette appeals from the District Court’s order affirming the Commissioner

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 17-1903

Document: 003112724885

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/13/2017

of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability benefits. We will affirm.1
I.
Galette applied for disability benefits in 2013 alleging that a number of conditions
rendered him disabled beginning on March 6, 2013. Those conditions were of two kinds.
First, Galette claimed to suffer disabling weakness and pain associated with various
physical injuries. Second, he claimed to suffer from disabling mental illnesses, including
anxiety and bipolar disorders. The Social Security Administration denied his application.
Galette then appealed to an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Galette
apparently retained counsel in connection with his initial application, but he ultimately
proceeded before the ALJ with the assistance of a non-attorney representative. The ALJ
received evidence, held a hearing, and found that Galette was not disabled during the
relevant time.
In doing so, the ALJ applied the five-step, sequential evaluation process that
governs disability determinations. See Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607, 611-12 (3d Cir.
2014). The ALJ ultimately concluded that Galette was not disabled as defined by 42
U.S.C. § 423(d) because he was capable of engaging in other “substantial gainful work

1

After the briefing schedule issued, Galette filed a document docketed as a document in
support of his appeal. He later filed a motion requesting that we treat that document as
his brief. The Commissioner does not object and instead has filed a response brief.
Galette’s motion is granted, and we will treat the documents docketed on June 5 and July
10, 2017, as his brief. Galette also has filed a motion for appointment of counsel on
appeal. That motion is denied because, inter alia, it does not identify any potentially
meritorious issue and our review reveals none. See Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155-57
(3d Cir. 1993). Thus, this appeal is fully briefed and is ripe for disposition.
2

Case: 17-1903

Document: 003112724885

Page: 3

Date Filed: 09/13/2017

which exists in the national economy.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). The ALJ made that
determination after reviewing Galette’s medical records at length and receiving the
testimony of a vocational expert, who opined that someone with Galette’s limitations
could perform sedentary work with appropriate accommodations in occupations such as
an addresser, sorter, or stuffer. Galette appealed through counsel to the Appeals Council,
which rejected his appeal. With that decision, the Commissioner’s denial of benefits
became final.
Galette then filed pro se this civil action seeking review of the Commissioner’s
decision. The Commissioner moved for summary judgment, and the District Court
granted it and affirmed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Galette appeals pro se.2
II.
As the District Court explained, Galette’s filings in the District Court did not raise
any specific challenge to the ALJ’s decision. The District Court nevertheless reviewed
the record and concluded that it supported the ALJ’s determinations. We have done the
same and reach the same conclusion, largely for the reasons that the District Court

2

The District Court had jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s decision under 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Like the District
Court, we review the ALJ’s decision under the deferential substantial evidence standard.
See Zirnsak, 777 F.3d at 610-11. After the District Court entered judgment, Galette filed
a motion for reconsideration and the District Court denied it. That ruling is not before us
because Galette did not file another notice of appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii),
and his time to do so has expired, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). We note, however, that
the document in support of Galette’s appeal that we are treating as part of his brief
appears to be a duplicate copy of his motion for reconsideration that he filed
simultaneously with this Court.
3

Case: 17-1903

Document: 003112724885

Page: 4

Date Filed: 09/13/2017

explained. We will briefly address three issues that Galette raises on appeal.
First, Galette argues that the “state rep,” by whom he appears to mean the
vocational expert, testified at the hearing that there were 500 jobs available but then, on
questioning from Galette’s representative, admitted that she had not been aware of his
psychological condition and that it would prevent him from doing those jobs.
This argument misstates the record and does not otherwise provide any basis for
relief. The vocational expert testified that there were positions available to someone with
Galette’s limitations, including approximately 490 local positions for a sorter. (R.60;
ECF No. 8-2 at 61.) Galette’s representative later questioned her about a psychological
report admitted as Exhibit 54F (R.803-06; ECF No. 8-12 at 55-58), which stated that
Galette’s psychological ability to perform work-related activities was markedly impaired.
(R.61-62; ECF No. 8-2 at 62-63.) The vocational expert agreed that, considering only
that report, those impairments would prevent Galette from performing any available
work. (Id.)
The ALJ, however, found that report unpersuasive and gave it little weight. The
report is signed by Dr. Altaf F. Kasmani, who treated Galette for his mental illnesses.
The report is titled “medical source statement of ability to do work—related activities
(mental).” It provides boxes to check regarding any impairments on a person’s ability to
perform various work-related activities, and the boxes for “marked” impairment are
checked for all of them. The report also contains brief fill-in-the-blank sections
identifying the factors supporting those conclusions.
4

Case: 17-1903

Document: 003112724885

Page: 5

Date Filed: 09/13/2017

As we have explained, forms that “require[] the physician only to check boxes and
briefly to fill in blanks . . . are weak evidence at best.” Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058,
1065 (3d Cir. 1993). In this case, the ALJ gave the report little weight because she
concluded that it conflicted with Dr. Kasmani’s actual treatment notes, the most recent of
which before the report stated that Galette was “stable on current [medication]
management” (R. 741; ECF No. 8-11 at 56), and none of which mentioned panic attacks
that are referenced in the report. The ALJ also explained that she found more persuasive
the assessment of a State agency psychological consultant who concluded that Galette
had only moderate psychological limitations. (R.72-76; ECF No. 8-3 at 10-14.) Galette
has not argued that the ALJ erred in giving little weight to Dr. Kasmani’s report, and we
cannot say that she was required to accept it at face value under these circumstances. See
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001).
Second, Galette argues that the ALJ’s conclusion that he could perform the jobs
referenced above was speculative because he is not trained to do and has never done
those jobs. The ALJ, however, appropriately grounded that conclusion both in Galette’s
medical records and the vocational expert’s testimony. In doing so, the ALJ
appropriately accounted for Galette’s physical limitations by limiting him to sedentary
work with various other restrictions, and she appropriately accounted for his
psychological limitations by limiting him to simple routine and repetitive tasks with
limited personal interaction. (R.24; ECF No. 8-2 at 25.) Galette does not argue that
those limitations are inadequate and has not otherwise raised anything else calling the
5

Case: 17-1903

Document: 003112724885

Page: 6

Date Filed: 09/13/2017

ALJ’s assessment into question.
Finally, Galette argues that the District Court should have granted the motion for
appointment of counsel that he filed at ECF No. 6. Our review does not reveal any ruling
on that motion, though the District Court may have addressed it at a hearing that it held,
which has not been transcribed. In any event, this issue does not require remand.
Galette’s motion for counsel did not make any showing on the relevant factors except to
list the disabilities he claims and to assert the first argument addressed above, which we
have rejected. See Tabron, 6 F.3d at 155-57. Our review also does not suggest any
potentially meritorious issue that counsel could have helped Galette pursue in the District
Court. To the contrary, Galette’s motion, like many of his other filings, was devoted
largely to disputes with his former wife regarding child custody and other matters that are
not relevant to this disability benefits proceeding.
III.
For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. For the
reasons explained in note 1, supra, Galette’s motion to treat as his appellate brief the
document docketed on June 5, 2017, is granted, and his motion for appointment of
counsel on appeal is denied.

6