HODOLITZ v. ASTRUE
ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW BE DENIED AND JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE C. DARNELL JONES, II ON 12/17/12. 12/19/12 ENTERED & E-MAILED.[fdc]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BARBARA J. HODOLITZ,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.
AND NOW, this 17th day of December, 2012, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Request
for Review (Dkt. No. 8), Defendant’s Response in opposition thereto (Dkt. No. 12), the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 15) (“R&R”), and Plaintiff’s
Objections (Dkt. No. 16), it is hereby ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation are
Plaintiff’s Objections largely restate the arguments she made in her opening brief.
Compare, e.g., Dkt. No. 8 at 5-11 to Dkt. No. 16 at 1-3 (both arguing that ALJ erred in finding
several of Plaintiff’s alleged impairments to be “not medically determinable” instead of “severe”)
and Dkt. No. 8 at 20-22 to Dkt. No. 16 at 3-4 (both arguing that the ALJ failed to consider how
Plaintiff’s non-severe impairments impacted her ability to work). Accordingly, this Court need
not accord de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In any event, despite Plaintiff’s contentions to the contrary, the ALJ did in fact recognize
evidence of both medically determinable and medically indeterminable impairments; he then
determined various of the latter not to be severe. See Dkt. No. 15 at 11 (citing Tr. 397).
Accordingly, as Plaintiff acknowledges, the ALJ did not need to consider Plaintiff’s allegations
relating to any of the medically indeterminable impairments. See Dkt. No. 16 at 2 (quoting Tr.
Furthermore, the ALJ honored the mandates of SSR 96-8p (“In assessing [residual
functioning capacity (“RFC”)], the adjudicator must consider limitations and restrictions
imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’”) and SSR 02-2p
Page 1 of 2
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND
Plaintiff’s Request for Review is DENIED and judgment is ENTERED in favor of
BY THE COURT:
/s/ C. Darnell Jones, II
C. DARNELL JONES, II
(“If the evidence supports a possible discrete mental impairment or symptoms such as anxiety
resulting from the individual’s [interstitial cystitis (“IC”)], we will develop the possible mental
impairment [record].”). As the R&R points out, “the fact that the ALJ may not have found
plaintiff’s [alleged impairment] severe...does not indicate that the ALJ did not consider the
limitations...when determining RFC.” Dkt. No. 15 at 24 (citing Tr. 733). Similarly, although the
ALJ’s decision does not specifically cite to SSR 02-2p, the record nonetheless does not support
Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ (and the Magistrate Judge) failed to consider SSR 02-2p.
While the R&R did not explicitly mention the duty to develop the related record, the ALJ
properly did so, finding that the evidence was adequate to determine that Plaintiff was not
disabled by IC.
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?