
    Harold J. BAILEY, Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.
    No. 01-2539.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) Jan. 16, 2002.
    Opinion Filed Jan. 25, 2002.
    Before: RENDELL, FUENTES, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       (Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 43(c))
    
   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.” Hartranft 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, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (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, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (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.  