LAGNER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, No. 1:2020cv00254 - Document 23 (W.D. Pa. 2021)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER denying 18 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 12/28/21. (slh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
LAGNER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Doc. 23 Case 1:20-cv-00254-DWA Document 23 Filed 12/28/21 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PATRICIA JEAN LAGNER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, -vsKILOLO KIJAKAZI, 1 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. Civil Action No. 20-254 AMBROSE, Senior District Judge OPINION Pending before the Court are Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 18 and 20). Both parties have filed Briefs in Support of their Motions. (ECF Nos. 19 and 21). After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, and based on my Opinion set forth below, I am denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) and granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 20). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brought this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for disability insurance benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. Plaintiff filed her application on August 24, 2016. Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), I. K. Harrington, held a video hearing on February 8, 2019. (ECF No. 10-2, pp. 38-80). During the hearing, Plaintiff amended her onset date from April 30, 2015 to June 1, 2017, as she continued to work up to that date. (ECF No. 10-2, pp. 44-45). On March 12, 2019, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Act from June 1, 2017, through the date of the decision. 1Kilolo Kijakazi became Acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9, 2021, replacing Andrew Saul. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00254-DWA Document 23 Filed 12/28/21 Page 2 of 8 (ECF No. 10-2, pp. 11-25). After exhausting all administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed the instant action with this court. The parties have filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 18 and 20). 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 “more 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/she 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). 2 Case 1:20-cv-00254-DWA Document 23 Filed 12/28/21 Page 3 of 8 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 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. Plaintiff’s Treating Physician, Dr. Dalton Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) 2 determination is unsupported by substantial evidence because the ALJ “failed to properly weigh the opinion of Dr. Dalton, Plaintiff’s treating physician.” (ECF No. 19, p. 1). The amount of weight accorded to 2 RFC refers to the most a claimant can still do despite his/her 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). In this case, the ALJ found Plaintiff had the RFC to perform sedentary work, with numerous exceptions. (ECF No. 10-2, p. 16). 3 Case 1:20-cv-00254-DWA Document 23 Filed 12/28/21 Page 4 of 8 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). The opinion of a treating physician need not be viewed uncritically, however. Rather, only where an 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,” must he give that opinion controlling weight. Id. “[T]he 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). 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) 4 Case 1:20-cv-00254-DWA Document 23 Filed 12/28/21 Page 5 of 8 (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, nonexamining 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. 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). Here, Plaintiff argues that the reasons the ALJ gave for discounting Dr. Dalton’s opinion were improper. (ECF No. 19, pp. 8-11). The ALJ’s first reason for assigning Dr. Dalton’s opinion minimal weight was that it was “unsupported by various treatment notes showing steady gait, no assistive devices, and effectiveness of treatment in improving her pain.” (ECF No. 10-2, p. 22). In support of her position that this rationale is not supported by the record, Plaintiff points to other portions of the record that show an antalgic gait and that she did not improve. (ECF No. 19, p. 8-9). To be clear, the standard is not whether there is evidence to establish Plaintiff’s position. Allen v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir. 1989). [The] question is not whether substantial evidence supports Plaintiff’s claims, or whether there is evidence that is inconsistent with the ALJ’s finding…. Substantial evidence could support both Plaintiff’s claims and the ALJ’s findings because substantial evidence is less than a preponderance. Jesurum v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Services, 48 F.3d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). If substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding, it does not matter if substantial evidence also supports Plaintiff’s claims. Reefer v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 376, 379 (3d Cir. 2003). Weidow v. Colvin, Civ. No. 15-765, 2016 WL 5871164 at *18 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2016). Thus, the question before me is whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings. Allen, 881 F.2d at 39 (3d Cir. 1989). 5 Case 1:20-cv-00254-DWA Document 23 Filed 12/28/21 Page 6 of 8 Again, 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). Inconsistency is a valid reason for discrediting evidence. See, 20 C.F.R. §§416.927, 404.1527 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence). After a review of the record and reading the decision of the ALJ as a whole, I find the ALJ’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence in this regard. (ECF No. 10-2, pp. 11-25). Therefore, remand is not warranted on this basis. Plaintiff further argues that the ALJ’s decision should be reversed because she “wholly failed to even mention pertinent evidence; specifically: the CAT scan of Plaintiff’s spine….” (ECF No. 19, pp. 9-10). An ALJ must set forth the reasons for crediting or discrediting relevant or pertinent medical evidence. Burnett v. Comm’er of SS, 220 F.3d 112, 121-22 (3d Cir. 2000); Lanza v. Astrue, No. 08-301, 2009 WL 1147911, at *7 (W.D. Pa. April 28, 2009). “’In the absence of such an indication, the reviewing court cannot tell if significant probative evidence was not credited or simply ignored.’” Burnett, 220 F.3d at 121-122, quoting Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 705 (3d Cir. 1981). Without the same, a reviewing court cannot make a proper determination of whether the ALJ’s decision is based on substantial evidence. Id. Nonetheless, there is no requirement for an ALJ to discuss or refer to every piece of relevant evidence in the record, as long as the reviewing court can determine the basis of the decision. Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 42 (3d Cir. 2001); Hur v. Barnhart, 94 Fed. Appx. 130, *2 (3d Cir. April 16, 2004) (“There is no requirement that the ALJ discuss in its opinion every tidbit of evidence included in the record.”). Rather, an ALJ must provide sufficient explanation of his or her final determination to afford a reviewing court with the benefit of the factual basis underlying the 6 Case 1:20-cv-00254-DWA Document 23 Filed 12/28/21 Page 7 of 8 ultimate disability finding. Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 705 (3d Cir. 1981). Additionally, I note that a plaintiff need not be pain-free or symptom-free to be found not disabled. In this case, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions otherwise, the ALJ specifically discussed throughout the opinion Plaintiff’s spine issues, including her ability to ambulate. (ECF No. 10-2, pp. 11-25). For example, the ALJ discussed multiple diagnostic tests, treatment notes, examinations, medications, Plaintiff’s testimony, and the opinion evidence. Id. at pp. 16-22. After a review of the record and reading the decision of the ALJ as a whole, I find that I am able to sufficiently discern the basis for the ALJ’s opinion regarding her ability to walk and stand and find that it is based on substantial evidence. (ECF No. 10-2, p. 11-25). Thus, I find no error in this regard. The ALJ also gave Dalton’s opinion minimal weight because it was “inconsistent with [Plaintiff’s] varied activities of daily living, including her plan to babysit grandchildren (Exhibit 19F) and be a significant part of her grandchild’s care. (Exhibit 20F).” (ECF No. 10-2, p. 22). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to provide an explanation as to how Plaintiff’s activities of daily living translate into her ability to perform work. (ECF No. 19, pp. 10-11). After a review, I disagree. An ALJ is required to consider, inter alia, a plaintiff’s activities of daily living in assessing the RFC. See, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529, 416.929. The ALJ will also consider inconsistencies between the claimant's statements and the evidence presented in making the RFC determination. Id. In this case, the ALJ considered at length Plaintiff’s activities of daily living and the consistency of the same in relation to the other evidence in making the RFC determination of sedentary work with exceptions. (ECF No. 10-2, pp. 16-22). A more detailed explanation was not required. Therefore, I find no error in this regard. Consequently, remand is not warranted. An appropriate order shall follow. 7 Case 1:20-cv-00254-DWA Document 23 Filed 12/28/21 Page 8 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PATRICIA JEAN LAGNER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, -vsKILOLO KIJAKAZI, 3 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. Civil Action No. 20-254 AMBROSE, Senior District Judge ORDER OF COURT THEREFORE, this 28th day of December, 2021, it is ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 18) is denied and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) is granted. BY THE COURT: Donetta W. Ambrose United States Senior District Judge 3Kilolo Kijakazi became Acting Commissioner of Social Security on July 9, 2021, replacing Andrew Saul. 8
]]>
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.
