HERSHMAN v. COLVIN, No. 2:2015cv01711 - Document 11 (W.D. Pa. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 7 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 9 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 12/22/16. (slh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM HERSHMAN, Plaintiff, -vsCAROLYN W. COLVIN, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 15-1711 AMBROSE, Senior District Judge OPINION Pending before the Court are Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 7 and 9). Both parties have filed Briefs in Support of their Motions. (ECF Nos. 8 and 10). After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, and based on my Opinion set forth below, I am granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 7) and denying Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 9). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff has brought this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (ACommissioner@) denying his applications for supplemental security income (“SSI”) and disability insurance benefits (“BID”) pursuant to the Social Security Act (AAct@). Plaintiff filed his applications alleging he had been disabled since January 24, 2013. (ECF No. 5-5, pp. 2, 4). Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Alma S. deLeon, held a hearing on July 16, 2014. (ECF No. 5-2, pp. 31-70). On August 4, 2014, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Act. (ECF No. 5-2, pp. 17-27). After exhausting all administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed the instant action with this court. The parties have filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 7 and 9). The issues are now ripe for review. II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review The standard of review in social security cases is whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the Commissioner=s decision. Allen v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir. 1989). Substantial evidence has been defined as Amore than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.@ Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 900, 901 (3d Cir. 1995), quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Additionally, the Commissioner=s findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive. 42 U.S.C. '405(g); Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 406 (3d Cir. 1979). A district court cannot conduct a de novo review of the Commissioner=s decision or re-weigh the evidence of record. Palmer v. Apfel, 995 F.Supp. 549, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Where the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, a court is bound by those findings, even if the court would have decided the factual inquiry differently. Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999). To determine whether a finding is supported by substantial evidence, however, the district court must review the record as a whole. See, 5 U.S.C. '706. To be eligible for social security benefits, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he cannot engage in substantial gainful activity because of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. '423(d)(1)(A); Brewster v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 581, 583 (3d Cir. 1986). The Commissioner has provided the ALJ with a five-step sequential analysis to use when evaluating the disabled status of each claimant. 20 C.F.R. '404.1520(a). The ALJ must determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) if the claimant has a severe impairment, whether it meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P., appx. 1; (4) if the 2 impairment does not satisfy one of the impairment listings, whether the claimant=s impairments prevent him from performing his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is incapable of performing his past relevant work, whether he can perform any other work which exists in the national economy, in light of his age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. '404.1520. The claimant carries the initial burden of demonstrating by medical evidence that he is unable to return to his previous employment (steps 1-4). Dobrowolsky, 606 F.2d at 406. Once the claimant meets this burden, the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can engage in alternative substantial gainful activity (step 5). Id. A district court, after reviewing the entire record may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision with or without remand to the Commissioner for rehearing. Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210, 221 (3d Cir. 1984). B. Residual Functional Capacity (“RFC”)1 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ “failed to provide appropriate weight to all of the treating source opinions in the record.” (ECF No. 8, pp. 10-12). In support thereof, Plaintiff essentially submits that there is substantial evidence to support that he is not able to physically or mentally do the work set forth in the ALJ’s RFC finding.2 Id. To be clear, the standard is not whether there is evidence to establish Plaintiff’s position but, rather, is whether there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding. Allen v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir. 1989). Thus, this support for Plaintiff’s argument is misplaced. 1 RFC refers to the most a claimant can still do despite his limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). The assessment must be based upon all of the relevant evidence, including the medical records, medical source opinions, and the individual’s subjective allegations and description of his own limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a). 2 The ALJ found Plaintiff has the RFC to perform sedentary work with physical exceptions. (ECF No. 5-2, p. 21). 3 Nonetheless, in one sentence, Plaintiff cites case law that “[i]t is error of law to reject the treating physician’s opinion without adequate explanation.” (ECF No. 8, p. 10). Therefore, I will consider this issue. The amount of weight accorded to medical opinions is well-established. Generally, the ALJ will give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined the claimant than to a non-examining source. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(1). In addition, the ALJ generally will give more weight to opinions from a treating physician, “since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” Id. § 416.927(c)(2). If the ALJ finds that “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence [of] record,” he must give that opinion controlling weight. Id. Also, “the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the ALJ generally] will give to that opinion.” Id. § 416.927(c)(4). In the event of conflicting medical evidence, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained: “A cardinal principle guiding disability determinations is that the ALJ accord treating physicians’ reports great weight, especially ‘when their opinions reflect expert judgment based on continuing observation of the patient’s condition over a prolonged period of time.’” Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999)). However, “where . . . the opinion of a treating physician conflicts with that of a non-treating, non-examining physician, the ALJ may choose whom to credit” and may reject the treating physician’s assessment if such rejection is based on contradictory medical evidence. Id. Similarly, under 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2), the opinion of a treating physician is to be given controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medical evidence and is consistent with other evidence in the record. 4 Becker v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., No. 10-2517, 2010 WL 5078238, at *5 (3d Cir. Dec. 14, 2010). Although the ALJ may choose whom to credit when faced with a conflict, he “cannot reject evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason.” Diaz v. Comm’r of Soc. Security, 577 F.3d 500, 505 (3d Cir. 2009). With regard to the opinion evidence related to Plaintiff’s physical limitations, the ALJ gave the state agency medical consultant significant weight. (ECF No. 5-2, pp. 23-24). State agency opinions merit significant consideration. See SSR 96–6p (“Because State agency medical and psychological consultants ... are experts in the Social Security disability programs, ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f) and 416.927(f) require [ALJs] ... to consider their findings of fact about the nature and severity of an individual's impairment(s)....”). The ALJ gave the state agency doctor’s opinion great weight because it was “generally consistent with and supported by the record as a whole.” (ECF No. 5-2, p. 24). This is a valid and acceptable consideration when evaluating opinion evidence. See, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527; 416.927 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence). After a review of the record, I find the reasons given by the ALJ in weighing the conflicting opinions to be sufficiently explained and supported by substantial evidence of record. (ECF No. 5-2, pp. 23-24). Thus, I am able to conduct a meaningful review. Therefore, I find no error in this regard on the part of the ALJ. Consequently, remand is not warranted on this basis. With regard to the opinion evidence related to Plaintiff’s mental limitations, there was only one opinion of record. (ECF No. 5-9, pp. 2-12). It was from Plaintiff’s treating psychologist, Dr. Hanlon. Id. The ALJ gave Dr. Hanlon’s opinion limited weight “because it is without substantial support from treatment records and/or objective medical findings.” (ECF No. 5-2, p. 25). I am unsure to what other evidence the ALJ is referring since there is no other psychological evidence as it relates to Plaintiff. In other words, there is no other opinion evidence of record regarding Plaintiff’s mental functional abilities upon which the ALJ could have relied upon in forming the RFC for Plaintiff. “Rarely can a decision be made regarding a claimant’s [RFC] without an 5 assessment from a physician regarding the functional abilities of the claimant.” Gormont v. Astrue, No. 11-2145, 2013 WL 791455 at *7 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2013), citing Doak v. Heckler, 790 F.2d 26 (3d Cir. 1986). After a review of the record, I am unable to determine if said RFC is based on substantial evidence, since she basically rejected the only medical opinion offered on Plaintiff’s mental functional capacity. (ECF No. 5-2, pp. 17-27). Thus, I find the ALJ’s opinion is not based on substantial evidence. Consequently, remand is warranted on this basis. An appropriate order shall follow. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM HERSHMAN, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, -vsCAROLYN W. COLVIN, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. Civil Action No. 15-1711 AMBROSE, Senior District Judge ORDER OF COURT THEREFORE, this 22nd day of January, 2016, it is ordered that Plaintiff=s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 7) is granted in part and denied in part and Defendant=s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 9) is denied. It is further ordered that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is hereby vacated and the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion. BY THE COURT: s/ Donetta W. Ambrose Donetta W. Ambrose United States Senior District Judge 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
