MCCONNELL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, No. 2:2011cv00516 - Document 14 (W.D. Pa. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 10 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 12 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. See Memorandum Judgment Order for further details. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 7/23/12. (kw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MCCONNELL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LISA KAY McCONNELL, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 11-516 MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER AND NOW, this of the parties' ;;3~Of July, 2012, upon due consideration cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") under Title II of the Social Security Act ("Act"), IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Document No. 12) be I and the same hereby is, granted and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Document No. 10) be, and the same hereby is, denied. As the factfinder, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") has an obligation to weigh all of the facts and evidence of record and may rej ect or discount reasons for doing so. Cir. 1999). substantial ""'A072 findings, any evidence if Plummer v. Apfel, the ALJ explains the 186 F.3d 422, (3d 429 Where the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by evidence, even if it a reviewing would have court decided is bound by the factual those inquiry (Rev. 8/82) Dockets.Justia.com differently. 2001). Fargnoli v. Moreover, Massanari, disability is not 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. determined merely by the presence of impairments, but by the effect that those impairments have upon an individual's ability to perform substantial gainful activity. Jones v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 125, 129 (3d Cir. 1991). These well-established principles preclude a reversal or remand of the ALJ's decision here because the record contains substantial evidence to support his findings and conclusions. Plaintiff filed her DIB application on August alleging disability beginning May 2, 2006, disc depression disease of the lumbar spine, Plaintiff's application was denied. ALJ held a hearing on January appeared represented by counsel. 28, 17, 2008, due to degenerative and obesity. At plaintiff's request, an 2010, at which plaintiff On May 21, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff is not disabled. The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review on March I, 2011, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. The instant action followed. Plaintiff, who has a high school education, was 39 years old on her alleged onset date of disability and is classified as a younger individual under the regulations. Plaintiff has past relevant 20 C.F.R. §404.1563(c). work experience as a corrections officer, home attendant, resident care aide, housekeeper/cleaner and teacher's aide, but she has not engaged in substantial gainful activity at any time since her alleged onset date of disability. After reviewing plaintiff's <i\%A072 (Rev. 8/82) 2 medical records and hearing testimony from plaintiff and a vocational expert at the hearing, the ALJ concluded that she is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. Al though the medical evidence established that plaintiff suffers from the severe impairments of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and obesity, those impairments, alone or in combination, do not meet or equal the criteria of any of the listed impairments set forth in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, Regulation No.4 ("Appendix 1") . The ALJ found that plaintiff retains the residual functional capaci ty to perform sedentary work with the additional limitations that she only can sit up to four hours per day, and she can stand and walk up to four hours per day result of these limitations, (the "RFC Finding"). As a the ALJ determined that plaintiff could not perform her past relevant work. However, based upon the vocational expert's testimony, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff's age, educational background, work experience and residual functional capacity enable her to perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, guard or cashier. Accordingly, such as a gate the ALJ found that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The Act defines "disability" as the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of a physical or mental impairment that can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§23(d} (1) (A). The impairment or impairments must be so severe that the claimant "is not only unable to do [her] previous work but cannot, ~A072 (Rev 8/82) - 3 _ considering [her] age, education and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy .... II 42 U.S.C. §423 (d) (2) (A) . The Commissioner has promulgated regulations that incorporate a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. The ALJ must determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether she has a severe impairmentj (3) if so, whether her impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in Appendix 1j (4) if not, whether the claimant/s impairment prevents her from performing her past relevant work; and (5) if so, whether the claimant can perform any other work that exists in the national economy, in light of her age, residual functional capacity.l education, work experience and 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a) (4). If the claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any stepi further inquiry is unnecessary. Id. In this case , plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process because he improperly evaluated and rej ected her subj ective complaints of pain , and thus incorrectly assessed her residual functional capacity. The court finds that these arguments lack merit. regarding plaintiff/s credibility argument I a lResidual functional capacity is defined as that which an individual still is able to do despite the limitations caused by her impairments. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a) (l}i Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 40. In assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity, the ALJ is required to consider her ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory and other requirements of work. 20 C.F.R. §404.1545(a) (4). 'W>A072 (Rev. Si82) - 4 claimant's complaints and other subj ective supported by objective medical evidence. symptoms must be 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c); Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999). An ALJ may reject the claimant's subjective testimony if he does not find it credible so long as he explains why he is rejecting the testimony. Schaudeck v. Commissioner of Social Security, (3d Cir. 1999). Here, 181 F.3d 429, 433 the ALJ properly analyzed plaintiff's subjective complaints of pain, and he explained why he found her testimony not entirely credible. In evaluating plaintiff's credibility, the ALJ complied with the appropriate regulations and considered all of the relevant evidence in the record, including the medical evidence, plaintiff's own statements about her symptoms, her activities of daily living, and the nature and extent of her treatment. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c) (1) - (c) (3); Social Security Ruling 96-7p. ALJ then considered the extent to which plaintiff's The alleged functional limitations reasonably could be accepted as consistent with the evidence of record and how those limitations affect her ability to work. that the 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c) (4). obj ective evidence is inconsistent The ALJ determined with plaintiff's allegation of total disability, and further found that plaintiff's testimony regarding her pain and resulting limitations was not entirely credible. This court finds that the ALJ (R. 14-15). adequately explained the basis for his credibility determination, (R. 15-16), and is satisfied that such determination is supported by substantial evidence. %'AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) - 5 Plaintiff next claims that the ALJ's RFC Finding failed to account for her subjective allegations of pain and the resulting limitations that she claimed to experience. ALJ's RFC Finding incorporated all of To the contrary, the plaintiff's limitations that the evidence of record supported, restriction sitting l to sedentary work, standing and walking. functional including a along with accommodations for Accordingly, the court finds that the ALJ's RFC Finding was supported by substantial evidence. In conclusion, after carefully and methodically considering all of the medical evidence of record, the ALJ determined that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. ALJ's findings and conclusions are supported evidence and are not otherwise erroneous. by substantial Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed. ~~ Gustave Diamond United states District Judge cc: Lindsay Fulton Osterhout, Esq. 521 Cedar Way suite 200 Oakmont, PA 15139 Albert Schollaert Assistant U.s. Attorney 700 Grant Street Suite 4000 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 <ll>.AOn (Rev 8/82) - 6 The
]]>
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.
