COX v. COLVIN

Filing 24

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS 21 ARE OVERRULED; THE COURT APPROVES AND ADOPTS MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 20 ; PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW 11 IS DENIED; AND, THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 06/26/2017. 06/26/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(nds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOANNE COX,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY BERRYHILL, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-1768

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 27th day of June, 2017, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 21) are

OVERRULED;1

1

The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s
objections to Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge’s Report and
Recommendation (”R&R”) and the Commissioner’s response to the
objections. There is no need to repeat the history or facts of
this case as Judge Strawbridge’s R&R has adequately relayed that
information.
The Court concludes that Judge Strawbridge has
correctly and adequately addressed Plaintiff’s arguments, and,
thus, adopts his R&R. Nonetheless, reviewing the issues raised
in Plaintiff’s objections de novo, Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Dominick
D’Andrea, Inc., 150 F.3d 245, 250 (3d Cir. 1998), the Court
further concludes that:
a.
The ALJ did not commit reversible error by
finding Plaintiff’s neck and right hip pain to be non-severe. As
noted by Judge Strawbridge, in that the ALJ found Plaintiff’s
obesity and lumbar spine strain and sprain to be severe, and
then considered both Plaintiff’s severe and non-severe
impairments during the rest of the sequential evaluation, no

error occurred. See (R&R at 8-9); Salles v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
229 F. App’x 140, 145 n.2 (3d Cir. 2007) (“Because the ALJ found
in Salles's favor at Step Two, even if he had erroneously
concluded that some of her other impairments were non-severe,
any error was harmless.”). Moreover, the ALJ specifically stated
that Plaintiff’s neck and hip issues seemed related to her
severe lumbar spine impairment and that he considered them
within that context. (Tr. 15). Thus, the Court finds that the
ALJ adequately addressed Plaintiff’s neck and hip impairments.
Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ erred by
concluding that her neck and hip impairments were non-severe
because there was no supporting diagnostic testing or diagnoses.
However, the ALJ was correct in his analysis in that SSR 96-4p
requires a severe impairment to be supported by medical signs
and laboratory findings. Plaintiff further highlights that Dr.
Paul Palmerio did note impressions of, inter alia, cervical and
right hip strain and sprain. (Tr. 239). This is accurate. To the
extent that these impressions conflicts with the ALJ’s
conclusion that no diagnoses supported neck and hip impairments,
the Court reiterates that it finds no reversible error since the
ALJ did consider Plaintiff’s neck and hip issues as part of her
spine impairment throughout the sequential analysis. Ultimately,
Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that an impairment is
severe. Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 146 (1987). Regardless
of whether there was a relevant diagnosis, Plaintiff has not
shown that her neck and hip impairments created any additional
significant work related limitations not accounted for in the
ALJ’s analysis.
b.
The ALJ did not err in his analysis of
Plaintiff’s severe obesity, nor did he fail to consider her
obesity in connection with her neck and hip impairments. Again,
as stated by Judge Strawbridge, the ALJ explicitly provided that
he considered Plaintiff’s neck and hip complaints within the
context of her severe lumbar strain and sprain and that he also
explicitly considered the effect of Plaintiff’s obesity upon
those impairments. (Tr. 15-16; R&R 11-14).
Furthermore, the ALJ’s conclusion that
Plaintiff’s obesity by itself did not cause any work related
limitations was supported by substantial evidence. Beyond merely
noting her weight, no source suggested that obesity limited
Plaintiff and the state agency physician opined that her obesity
2

(2)

The Court APPROVES and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge

David R. Strawbridge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20);
(3)

Plaintiff’s request for review (ECF No. 11) is

DENIED; and
(4)

The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as

CLOSED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO,
J.

was mild. (Tr. 66, 202, 296); see Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399
F.3d 546, 553 (3d Cir. 2005) (providing that a generalized
conclusion that a Plaintiff’s weight makes it more difficult to
stand, walk, and manipulate is insufficient to require a
remand).
In that the ALJ did not commit a reversible error
and his decision was supported by substantial evidence,
Plaintiff’s objections must be overruled, the R&R adopted, and
the ALJ’s decision affirmed.
3