CASSIDY v. ASTRUE

Filing 17

ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO REMOVE THIS ACTION FROM CIVIL SUSPENSE; PLFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT & RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED, & THE CAREFULLY REASONED REPORT & RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED & ADOPTED IN FULL, ETC. THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN PLFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS DENIED, & THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER IS AFFIRMED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 3/30/15. 3/31/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID J. CASSIDY,
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-945

v.
CAROLYNW. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.

ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of March 2015, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Brief and

Statement oflssues [Doc. No. 9], Defendant's Response [Doc. No. 10], Plaintiffs Reply [Doc. No.
11], and the administrative record, and upon review of the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski [Doc. No. 15], and de novo review of the issues raised in
Plaintiffs objections [Doc. No. 16], and after a careful and independent review of the complete
administrative record, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to remove this action from civil suspense;

2.

Plaintiffs Objections to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED, and

the carefully reasoned Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED in full; 1

1

The denial of Plaintiffs application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits was previously before
this Court (see Docket No. 09-28). On April 9, 2010, the Court remanded the matter so that an Administrative Law
Judge ("ALJ") could: 1) reassess the severity of Plaintiffs mental health impairment at Step Two of the five-step
sequential analysis; 2) re-evaluate Plaintiffs residual functional capacity, taking into consideration all exertional and
non-exertional limitations; and 3) reassess whether Plaintiff could perform his past relevant work. The case was
assigned to a different ALJ upon remand, who held a hearing, at which he heard testimony from Plaintiff, a medical
expert in psychiatry, and a vocational expert. Having re-evaluated the three areas of concern to the Court, the ALJ found
that Plaintiffs mental impairment was "severe" at Step 2, included both exertional and non-exertional limitations when
posing questions to the vocational expert, and found that Plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work. However,
the ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform other jobs existing in the local and national economy, and therefore found
Plaintiff was not disabled.
Plaintiff appealed the adverse ruling on remand to this Court, arguing that the ALJ: 1) did not re-evaluate
Plaintiffs exertional limitations, as ordered, but adopted the previous ALJ's findings on exertional limitations and only
re-evaluated his non-exertional limitations when determining his residual functional capacity; 2) failed to call a medical
expert to testify regarding his physical condition; and 3) improperly rejected examining sources and accepted the

3.

Consistent with the R & R, the Court finds that the administrative record contains

substantial evidence to support the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions oflaw, and thus the relief
requested in Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Request for Review is DENIED, and the decision of the
Commissioner is AFFIRMED.
It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

opinion of a non-examining source. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Sitarski for an R & R. The R & R
thoroughly analyzed the issues presented in Plaintiffs briefs. Plaintiff has filed objections to the R & R which
essentially disagree with the R & R's conclusions.
With regard to the first issue, Judge Sitarski found that although the ALJ on remand adopted the physical
residual functional capacity determined by the previous ALJ, he did so only after an independent evaluation of the
medical evidence. Plaintiff objected to this finding, again arguing that the ALJ did not follow the remand order. The
Court adopts the reasoning of the R & R in finding that this aspect of the ALJ's decision was not inconsistent with the
Court's order on remand, and that the decision was supported by substantial record evidence.
Regarding the question of whether additional medical expert testimony as to Plaintiffs physical condition was
required, the Court agrees with the R &R's finding that it was not. It is the Plaintiffs burden to produce evidence that
his medical condition was disabling prior to his date last insured, in 2005. Plaintiff did put forth evidence on that issue,
some of which the ALJ credited, and some of which he found was not entitled to great weight. The ALJ determined that
Dr. Ware's April 2005 opinion regarding the disabling severity of Plaintiffs condition was not consistent with
Plaintiffs contemporaneous medical records. Despite Plaintiffs objections, the Court agrees with the R & R's finding
that the ALJ did not err in issuing a decision without obtaining additional medical evidence, because the record
evidence provided a sufficient basis for the ALJ's decision, and because additional evidence would not shed light on
Plaintiffs condition prior to his date last insured, nearly 10 years ago.
Finally, the R & R found that the ALJ's decision regarding the functional limitations caused by Plaintiffs
mental illness (anxiety) and physical ailments was supported by the medical evidence. In his brief and his objections,
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly accorded great weight to the psychiatric expert who testified at the hearing (Dr.
Bell), and less weight to examining sources. The R & R found that the ALJ properly gave little weight to the Mental
Impairment Questionnaire prepared by Dr. Segal (who evaluated but did not have an ongoing treatment relationship
with Plaintiff), because it was not accompanied by any report, narrative, or notes to support his conclusions, and
because he evaluated Plaintiff more than a year after his date last insured. The R & R found that the ALJ reasonably
assigned little weight to consultative examiner Dr. Kaufman's opinion, because he examined Plaintiff about eighteen
months after this date last insured. Finally, the R & R found that the ALJ relied on adequate record evidence to support
his conclusion that Dr. Warner's opinion that Plaintiff could not work was inconsistent with Plaintiffs treatment
records. The Court agrees that the ALJ's opinion was supported by substantial evidence.

2