HENDERSON v. COLVIN
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE LYNNE A. SITARSKI. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS DENIED. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT, AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THE CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 10/12/16. 10/12/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (ky, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
o/b/o D.B., A MINOR,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2016, upon careful consideration of the
Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski
and independent review of the record in this matter, including Plaintiff’s objections to the
Report and Recommendation, 1 it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Review is
3. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant.
The only issue raised (or rather reiterated) in the objections that gives the Court pause is the
question of the ALJ’s consideration of D.B.’s medications; ultimately, the ALJ’s opinion is sufficient on
The ALJ specifically noted: D.B.’s improvement interacting with and relating to others since
starting psychotropic medication; his improved sleep on medication; his weight gain on medication,
juxtaposed with recent treatment notes indicating no health problems; and the recent prescription of Ritalin,
an indication of potential problems attending and completing tasks, but countered by evidence of good
attention during therapy and a lack of hyperactivity at school. (R. 26-29).
As noted by the magistrate and Plaintiff, any weakness in the ALJ’s consideration of medication
relates to frequency of medication and changes over time. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.924a(b)(9)(i)(C) and (D).
But the litany of medication changes recited by Plaintiff ends more than a year prior to the ALJ hearing,
except for the late addition of Ritalin and an apparent increase in Trazadone a few months earlier. (R. 260,
292). In other words, D.B.’s medications had been relatively stable in the period leading up to the ALJ’s
opinion, and there was little information from which to assess recent changes or any further frequency and
change issues. Any more explicit analysis by the ALJ would, therefore, have been empty and
inconsequential, and its absence in the ALJ’s opinion was harmless as the magistrate concluded.
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark the case closed.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J.
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?