INGRAM v. ASTRUE

Filing 27

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IS HEREBY APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT MICHAEL J. ASTRUE AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF ANDREA INGRAM AND SHALL MARK THIS CASE AS CLOSED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 4/30/2013. 5/1/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED.(kp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANDREA INGRAM,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 10-1858

Plaintiff,

v.

FILED

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,

MAY 0 I

20l5

MICHAEi. ~. KUNL., 01d1 ,,

By

Dep. Clerk

Defendant.

0 R D E R

AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2013, upon careful

and independent consideration of the parties' briefs (ECF Nos.
22-23), the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge

Timothy Rice (ECF No. 25), and Plaintiff's objections (ECF No.
26), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and
ADOPTED; 1 and

1

Plaintiff claims to have suffered from emotional and
mental impairments after experiencing firsthand two robberies at
her place of employment. R. at 32-36. She was subsequently
diagnosed with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. R. at 166-72.
Thereafter, she applied for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB),
because she claims she is unable to work in her previous
position as a retail clerk or any other position. Id. at 8, 21.
Specifically, she claims that she cannot work at all-as a result
of the two robberies, she does not trust men in general. Def.'s
Objections to Report & Recommendation 5 (hereinafter
Objections).

An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Plaintiff's
DIB application after holding a hearing on the matter. R. at 9.
Plaintiff then filed an administrative appeal that was
subsequently denied. Is!.:._ at 1. She now requests that this Court
review the ALJ's decision. Comp., ECF No. 3. The Court referred
the case to Magistrate Judge Rice for a report and
recommendation. Order, Mar. 19, 2013, ECF No. 24. Although
Plaintiff did not assert any specific argument in her pro se
supporting brief, Magistrate Judge Rice construed it to claim
that the ALJ improperly discredited the two above-mentioned
sources of evidence. Report & Recommendation 1 n.l, ECF No. 25.
This construction was justified, as Plaintiff elaborated on
these two arguments in her timely filed objections. See
Objections 5-7.
Magistrate Judge Rice now submits his Report and
Recommendation and recommends that Plaintiff's request for
review be denied, because (1) the ALJ's decision was supported
by substantial evidence, and (2) the ALJ properly discredited
Plaintiff's testimony and granted little weight to her
therapist's report. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Rice
determined that this evidence was not supported by any medical
evidence and were contradicted by Defendant's own medical
evidence, which the ALJ found persuasive. Report &
Recommendation 4-6; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (2); Morales
v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted)
Because Magistrate Judge Rice properly outlined the
standards for establishing a disability under the Social
Security Act and summarized the five-step sequential process for
evaluating disability claims, the Court will not duplicate these
efforts here. See Santiago v. Barnhart, 367 F. Supp. 2d 728, 732
(E.D. Pa. 2005) (Robreno, J.) (outlining standards and five-step
sequential process for evaluating disability claims) .
After reviewing de novo the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which Plaintiff has objected, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) (1)
(2012); Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Dominick D'Andrea, Inc.,
150 F.3d 245, 250 (3d Cir. 1998), the Court agrees with
Magistrate Judge Rice's assessment. The record shows that
Plaintiff is able to return to the work that she previously
performed. But if she believes her mental impairment will
prevent her from doing so, the record establishes that she is
able to adjust to work that exists in significant numbers in the
2

2. Plaintiff's Request for Review (ECF No. 8) is
DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court

shall enter JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant Michael J. Astrue and
against Plaintiff Andrea Ingram 2 and shall mark this case as
CLOSED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

t.

/]_ .L-

I/ EDUARDO

c.

I\~
ROB RENO I

J.

national and regional economy. See R. at 17. Furthermore,
Plaintiff's therapist provided no reason as to why Plaintiff's
observed symptoms led her to conclude that Plaintiff is unable
to perform any work-related functions, see id. at 323-39;
conversely, Defendant's medical consultant gave specific reasons
in finding that Plaintiff is fully capable of returning to work,
buttressing those reasons with medical evidence, see id. at 29699. Finally, the record fully qiscredits Plaintiff's testimony
that she experiences daily fears that prevent her from leaving
her home. See id. at 13. Therefore, the Court will approve and
adopt the Report and Recommendation and deny Plaintiff's request
for review of the ALJ's decision.
2

In a sentence four case, "[t]he [district] court shall
have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the
record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or revising the
decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause
for a rehearing." Walker v. Astrue, 593 F.3d 274, 276 n.l (3d
Cir. 2010) (citing 42 u.s.c. § 405 (g) (2006)).
3