MYRICK v. BERRYHILL

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 2/7/18. 2/7/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ARCHIE MYRICK

CIVIL ACTION
v.
NO. 17-515

NANCY A. BERRYHILL

MEMORANDUM
February 7, 2018

KEARNEY,J.

Archie Myrick asks we reverse or remand an administrative law judge's detailed finding
he does not presently suffer a disability qualifying him for benefits based on his subjective
complaints of physical impairments which, in many instances, are contradicted by medical
records or otherwise unsupported.
expert's findings.

He also challenges the judge's reliance on the vocational

After close study of the administrative law judge's findings and the

underlying record, we find substantial evidence for the denial of Social Security Disability and
Supplemental Security Income benefits to Mr. Myrick based on his present claims.

In the

accompanying Order, we deny Mr. Myrick's petition.
I.

Background

Sixty-one year old Archie Myrick graduated high school and attended two years of
college. 1 In 1968, Mr. Myrick tore a ligament in his left knee and recently the injury became
more painful. 2 The Social Security Administration provided Mr. Myrick with Supplemental
Security Income from 1989 until 2011 after finding a "severe impairment" of schizophrenia. 3
Mr. Myrick is not presently diagnosed with schizophrenia. 4 Sometime before 2010, Mr. Myrick
was shot in the stomach requiring two surgeries to recover. 5

A.

Medical records for Mr. Myrick's knee, hip, and back pain.

Mr. Myrick's medical records evidence early or mild osteoarthritis in his knee, hip, and
spine.

In October 2010, medical imaging of Mr. Myrick's lumbar spine showed mild fact

osteoarthritis and bullet fragments. 6
In November 2012, while incarcerated at SCI Waymart, Mr. Myrick had x-rays which
showed "hypertrophic change at the tibial spines" in his left knee leading to an "impression of
"early degenerative joint disease." 7 The x-ray also showed his "bony pelvis and hips are within
normal limits" and the bullet fragments. 8 Mr. Myrick had a second x-ray on his lumbar spine in
January 2013, which showed "mild multilevel degenerative disc disease" with "mild narrowing
and degeneration of the lumbar disks at all levels, with satisfactory alignment."9 The bullet
fragments were also visible. 10 In Mr. Myrick's SCI Waymart medical summary, the physical
limitations section prohibits sports and weight lifting and identifies a special need as a lower
bunk. 11

The employment limitations section prohibits intensive labor, pushing, squatting,

standing, or lifting. 12
B.

Mr. Myrick's 2013 application for benefits and medical review.

In August 2013, Mr. Myrick filed for Social Security Disability and Supplemental
Security Income benefits as of August 14, 1989. 13 Mr. Myrick cited three disabilities: paranoid
schizophrenia, pain in knees and lower back, and stomach injury caused by the shooting.
Medical evaluation after Mr. Myrick's Social Security petition.
On December 17, 2013, Dr. David Knox, evaluated Mr. Myrick in connection with this
petition and found his gait and station normal and with no difficulty getting on the examination
table or removing his shirt. 14 Dr. Knox noted Mr. Myrick had crepitus in both knees. 15 Dr.
Knox found Mr. Myrick had a full range of motion in his ankles, knees, hips, shoulders, elbows,

2

and wrist joints and his neuro examination is unremarkable. 16 Dr. Knox's found Mr. Myrick had
chronic low back pain and degenerative joint disease involving both knees with a "fair"
prognosis. 17
The medical consultant's physical assessment found Mr. Myrick could occasionally
carry 50 pounds, frequently carry 25 pounds, stand/walk for 6 hours of an 8 hour day, sit for 6
hours of an 8 hour day but had limited ability to pull/push in his lower extremities. 18 It also
found Mr. Myrick had postural limitations occasionally when climbing ladders and frequently
when kneeling or crawling. 19 Mr. Myrick should not be exposed to extreme cold or concentrated
exposure to wetness. 20

C.

Treating physician Dr. Gold's reports.

Following release from SCI Waymart, Mr. Myrick began treating with Dr. Joseph Gold
as his primary care physician. Dr. Gold's records evidence Mr. Myrick sporadically complained
of back/knee/hip pain. In February 2014, Dr. Gold saw Mr. Myrick and recorded Mr. Myrick's
chief complaint as "RX Refill/Pain in back and under right knee." 21 Dr. Gold found Mr. Myrick
had a normal gait, normal range of motion, no tenderness, and no deformity. 22 In April 2014,
Mr. Myrick saw Dr. Gold for a check-up and Mr. Myrick had a normal range of motion and a
normal gait. 23
In June 2014, Dr. Gold saw Mr. Myrick and reported no back pain, no joint pain, and no
decreased range of motion. 24 Dr. Gold noted Mr. Myrick has a normal gait, normal range of
motion, and normal strength. 25 In August 2014, Mr. Myrick visited Dr. Gold for a prescription
refill and Dr. Gold noted he had a normal gait and normal range of motion. 26 Dr. Gold saw Mr.
Myrick again in September 2014 and Mr. Myrick complained of knee pain for two days and
rated the pain a five out of ten. 27 Dr. Gold noted Mr. Myrick had a normal gait, normal range of

3

motion, no tenderness, and no swelling. 28 Dr. Gold saw Mr. Myrick in December 2014 for a
cold and RX refill. 29 Mr. Myrick then complained of mild pain in his lower back region. 30
In April 2015, Mr. Myrick called Dr. Gold's office to report pain in his right knee for the
past month. 31 Dr. Gold saw Mr. Myrick and noted he had a normal gait and normal range of
motion.

32

Dr. Gold ordered x-rays of Mr. Myrick's right knee and hip. 33 In May 2015, doctors

examined Mr. Myrick's right hip and knee. 34 Mr. Myrick's right knee had "mild spurring along
the tibial spines" and "patellofemoral compartment" but did not have visible "joint effusion."35
The doctor's impression of Mr. Myrick's knee after the exam is "mild osteoarthritis
predominantly involving the patellofemoral compartment."36

Mr. Myrick's hip examination

showed bullet fragments from his earlier gunshot wound. 37 His hip also showed an "[o]bliquely
oriented linear ossification projecting over the right obturator foramen unchanged since 2006 and
corresponds to tendinous ossification of the right gluteus maximus muscle." 38 The doctor's
impression is "early right hip osteoarthritis."39
Dr. Gold saw Mr. Myrick again in September 2015 complaining of a cold and asking for
a prescription refill. 40 Dr. Gold noted Mr. Myrick had no back pain, no neck pain, no joint pain,
and no decreased range of motion and also had normal gait, normal range of motion, and normal
strength. 41

D.

Mr. Myrick's daily life as described to the administrative law judge.

Mr. Myrick lived with his mother until her death in February 2014. 42 Before his mother's
passing, Mr. Myrick cared for her by cooking for her and giving her medication. 43 Mr. Myrick
plays the bass guitar weekly and plays video games. 44 Mr. Myrick's sister takes him shopping
about once a week and he prepares his own meals three or four times a week which can take
from 45 minutes to 3 hours. 45 Mr. Myrick also does his own laundry, vacuums, handles his own

4

finances, and takes care of his own personal hygiene needs. 46 Mr. Myrick watches television but
does not follow the plot because his mind gets distracted. He reads books but stops after a few
pages. 47 Mr. Myrick finishes what he starts, follows written instructions "well," and follows
spoken instructions "pretty well." 48 Mr. Myrick says he could not walk more than 8 blocks
before he needed to rest for 3 minutes. 49 Mr. Myrick does not medicate for his conditions.so Mr.
Myrick hears voices but "but thinks it's [his] subconscious" and does not obey them.s 1 Mr.
Myrick spends 12-16 hours a day laying in bed to relieve his back pain.s 2 Mr. Myrick does not
have a driver's license but uses public transportation.s 3
E.

The Social Security Administration's denial of benefits.

The Social Security Administration denied Mr. Myrick's application.s 4

Mr. Myrick

requested a hearing before an administrative law judge. ss
On January 7, 2016, Mr. Myrick appeared before Administrative Law Judge Jennifer M.
Lash for his hearing. s6 At the hearing, Mr. Myrick amended the onset date for benefits to August
27, 2013.s 7 On March 31, 2016, ALJ Lash denied Mr. Myrick's claims.ss Applying the five step
analysis outlined below, ALJ Lash concluded Mr. Myrick did not suffer a disability under the
Social Security Act ("Act") as of August 27, 2013 to the date of her decision.s 9
ALJ Lash found Mr. Myrick suffered from "severe" impairments: bilateral knee
disorders; right hip disorder; disorders of the back; status post gunshot wound; an affective
disorder; and polysubstance dependence. 60 ALJ Lash found none of Mr. Myrick's impairments
or combination of impairments meets or medically equals the severity of listed impairments in
the Code of Federal Regulations. 61 ALJ Lash found Mr. Myrick's hip and knee disorders do not
meet the definition of severe because Mr. Myrick can ambulate effectively. 62 ALJ Lash found
Mr. Myrick's back disorder does not meet the definition of severe because there is no evidence

5

of the criteria in the regulations. 63 ALJ Lash also found Mr. Myrick's mental impairments
individually or combined did not meet the definition of severe because Mr. Myrick has no
restrictions in his daily living, has no difficulty in his social functioning, has moderate difficult
with concentration, persistence, and pace, and has no episodes of decompensation. 64
ALJ Lash found Mr. Myrick's medically determinable impairments could cause his
difficulties lifting, squatting, bending, standing, walking, sitting, kneeling, and stair climbing but
found Mr. Myrick's "statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of
these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the evidence." 65 For Mr. Myrick's physical
impairments, ALJ Lash found Mr. Myrick had a normal gait and normal range of motion at most
of his examinations and the medical imaging of his knee and back only showed early and mild
osteoarthritis after the alleged onset date of his disability. 66 ALJ Lash also found Mr. Myrick
only received treatment "essentially routine and/or conservative in nature" and the kind of
treatment expected for a totally disabled individual. 67 For Mr. Myrick's mental impairments,
ALJ Lash found the overall record showed Mr. Myrick can perform activities necessary to obtain
and maintain employment and he is stable and maintained his sobriety. 68
ALJ Lash considered Mr. Myrick's age, education, experience, and residual functioning
capacity and found Mr. Myrick could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national
economy. 69 ALJ Lash found Mr. Myrick has a residual functioning capacity to perform medium
work except for additional limitations: no frequent operation of foot controls; frequent balancing,
stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling and climbing of ramps and stairs; and occasional
climbing of ladders, ropes and scaffolds. 70 ALJ Lash also found Mr. Myrick must avoid frequent
exposure to extreme cold, wetness and hazards, including moving machinery and unprotected
heights, and he is limited to unskilled work with routine, repetitive tasks secondary to a moderate

6

limitation in the ability to maintain concentration, persistence, and pace. 71 ALJ Lash determined
Mr. Myrick had no past relevant work. 72
After ALJ Lash determined Mr. Myrick's limitations, she then posed hypothetical
questions to Vocational Expert Eric Dennison. ALJ Lash asked Mr. Dennison if jobs exist in the
nation economy for an individual matching Mr. Myrick's age and education level and who had
no past relevant work experience. 73 ALJ Lash asked Mr. Dennison to assume this individual
"can perform a range of medium exertional work with no frequent operation of foot controls, can
perform frequent balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling and occasional climbing of
ladders, ropes, and scaffolds; must avoid frequent exposure to extreme cold, wetness and
hazards, including moving machinery and unprotected heights and would be limited to unskilled
work with routine, repetitive tasks secondary to a moderate limitation of the ability to maintain
concentration, persistence or pace ... " 74 Mr. Dennison testified positions are available for this
hypothetical individual and identified a linen room attendant, press tender, and a checker as a
"representative sampling of job available" for someone with these limitations. 75 Based on the
testimony of Mr. Dennison, ALJ Lash concluded Mr. Myrick is not disabled as defined by the
Act since August 27, 2013. 76

II.

Analysis
Mr. Myrick timely requested our review arguing ALJ Lash erred (1) in finding Mr.

Myrick can perform a limited range of medium work, and (2) in relying on the testimony of
Vocational Expert Eric Dennison because ALJ Lash's hypothetical question to the expert did not
include all of Mr. Myrick's impairments. Mr. Myrick argues ALJ Lash's finding he can perform
a limited range of medium work is not supported by substantial evidence because ALJ Lash
failed to account for his subjective complaints concerning his knee, hip, and gunshot wound

7

impairments supported by his medical records and ALJ Lash assigned little weight to Dr. Knox's
opinion but then used it to support some of her findings. Mr. Myrick argues ALJ Lash erred in
relying on the vocational expert's testimony because ALJ Lash's hypothetical questions "did not
properly include the moderate limitations in concentration, persistence or pace" found by ALJ
Lash. 77
Our review of ALJ Lash's decision is deferential and ALJ Lash's findings of fact are
conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 78

Substantial evidence is "such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 79 Substantial
evidence is "more than a mere scintilla but may be somewhat less than a preponderance of the
evidence. " 80 To determine whether substantial evidence supports a factual finding, we review
the record as a whole. 81 We are bound by the ALJ's factual findings if supported by substantial
evidence, even if we would decide the matter differently after hearing the evidence and

.
eva1 . the witnesses. 82
uatmg
An ALJ must determine whether the claimant is disabled when examining a challenge to
the Commissioner's initial decision denying benefits. Under Title II of the Act, a person who
has contributed to the program who suffers from a physical or mental disability is afforded
insurance benefits. 83 Under Title XVI of the Act, a disabled person may also be entitled to
supplemental security income. 84 A disability is the inability "to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be
expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period
of not less than twelve months. " 85 A claimant is only disabled if their impairments are severe to
the point it makes their previous work impossible to do or precludes any other kind of gainful
work available in the national economy. 86

8

The Commissioner applies a five-step evaluation to determine if a claimant is disabled. 87
If the Commissioner finds disability or non-disability at any step during the analysis, the

Commissioner will end the analysis. 88 Under step one, the Commissioner determines whether
the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity. 89 If the claimant is not engaged in
substantial gainful activity, the Commissioner proceeds to step two and is required to determine
whether the claimant is suffering from a severe impairment or combination of impairments. 90
Under step three, if the claimant's impairments are severe, the Commissioner compares the
impairments to a list of impairments presumed severe enough to preclude gainful employment. 91
If the claimant's impairments or its equivalent match a listed impairment, the claimant is

presumed disabled. 92 If the claimant's impairments do not match impairments on the list, the
Commissioner proceeds to step four, where the Commissioner determines the claimant's residual
functional capacity ("RFC"). 93 A claimant's RFC is "that which an individual is still able to do
despite the limitations caused by his or her impairment(s)."94 In step five, if the claimant is
unable to return to past work, the Commissioner must prove "there are other jobs existing in
significant numbers in the national economy which claimant can perform, consistent with his
medical impairments, age, education, past work experience, and [RFC]."95
A.

ALJ Lash's finding Mr. Myrick can perform medium work with limitations
is supported by substantial evidence.

Mr. Myrick argues ALJ Lash's finding he has a residual functioning capacity to perform
medium work with specific limitations is not supported by substantial evidence. 96 Mr. Myrick
argues ALJ Lash failed to account for his subjective complaints of back and knee pain and failed
to consider his medical records showing arthritis in his lower spine and knee. He argues ALJ
Lash assigned little weight to Dr. Knox's opinion then relied on portions of his opinion to
support her finding Mr. Myrick could perform medium work with limitations and improperly
9

disregarded Dr. Knox's assessments of Mr. Myrick's limitations.
Mr. Myrick argues the medical evidence supports his complaints of pain and ALJ Lash
erred in disregarding them. Our court of appeals directs "[w]here medical evidence does support
a claimant's complaints of pain, the complaints should then be given 'great weight' and may not
be disregarded unless there exists contrary medical evidence."97

ALJ Lash's finding Mr.

Myrick's knee, hip, and back impairments are not as severe as his subjective complaints is
supported by her citation to substantial contrary medical evidence, including Mr. Myrick's
treating records confirming he often did not complain about pain, received minimal, basic
treatment for his impairments, objective medical imaging showed only mild or early
osteoarthritis, and Mr. Myrick's own testimony and statements about his ability to function.
1.

Mr. Myrick's medical records with Dr. Gold.

Mr. Myrick submitted his medical records from his treating doctor, Dr. Gold, covering
eight visits from February 2014 to September 2015. At every visit, Dr. Gold examined Mr.
Myrick and found he had a normal gait and range of motion. Mr. Myrick complained of pain in
his knees at three visits, February 2014, September 2014, and April 2015 and mild back pain at
one visit in December 2014. At the other five visits, Mr. Myrick did not report back pain, neck
pain, joint pain, or decreased range of motion.
ALJ Lash also found Mr. Myrick's subjective complaints are belied when Mr. Myrick
does not receive physical therapy or other treatment and did not use a cane or other mobility
device for his knee/hip/back impairments. ALJ Lash found the medical imaging of Mr. Myrick' s
knees, hips, and back is not consistent with Mr. Myrick's subjective complaints because they
showed only mild or early osteoarthritis with no fractures and the remnants of bullet fragments.

10

2.

Mr. Myrick's medical history with Dr. Knox.

Mr. Myrick objects to ALJ Lash's according little weight to Dr. Knox's findings but then
also relying on his findings at other points. In his consultative examination, Dr. Knox found Mr.
Myrick could lift 100 pounds occasionally and 21-50 pounds frequently, had no foot control
restrictions, and could perform frequent postural activities. ALJ Lash accorded it little weight
because other evidence shows Mr. Myrick is more limited than Dr. Knox assessed and Dr. Knox
only assessed Mr. Myrick once. 98 Mr. Myrick objects because, at other points in her analysis,
ALJ Lash relies on Dr. Knox's observation Mr. Myrick had normal reflexes, normal gait and
station, and no difficulty getting on the examination table or removing his shirt. ALJ Lash refers
to this observation of Dr. Knox when she is discussing the medical evidence of Mr. Myrick
having a normal gait, normal station, and normal range of motion, including Mr. Myrick's eight
visits with Dr. Gold and his consultation with Dr. Knox. ALJ Lash found a consensus on Mr.
Myrick's gait, station, and range of motion supported by substantial evidence. Her findings do
not contradict her rejecting Dr. Knox's assessment of Mr. Myrick's limitations as not in line with
other medical evidence.

3.

Mr. Myrick's medical assessment from SCI Waymart.

Mr. Myrick also objects to ALJ Lash's decision to afford little weight to SCI Waymart's
medical assessment.
ALJ Lash's decision to give little weight to this medical assessment because of the lack
of support from the SCI Waymart's medical records compared to the record as a whole. ALJ
Lash found the limitations imposed lacked support in the medical record because Mr. Myrick's
x-rays showed "early degenerative joint disease" in his knees but no acute disease or fractures
and in his lumbar spine "mild multilevel degenerative disc disease" but found no compression

11

fractures. 99 ALJ Lash also found SCI Waymart's limitations were not supported by the rest of
record which includes Mr. Myrick's treatment history with Dr. Gold, his consultation with Dr.
Knox, and the other medical imaging of his knee, hip, and back impairments.

ALJ Lash

reviewed the entire record and her analysis is based on substantial evidence.
4.

Mr. Myrick's testimony and statements about his daily activities.

Mr. Myrick also argues ALJ Lash erred in finding he had a residual functioning capacity
to perform medium work by relying on his ability to live independently in completing chores,
cooking meals, playing video games and bass guitar, stating he might work again, and because
he cared for his mother before she passed away. Mr. Myrick argues ALJ Lash places too much
reliance on Mr. Myrick' s testimony about his abilities to function in daily life in finding he is not
disabled.
ALJ Lash properly considered Mr. Myrick's daily activities in assessing Mr. Myrick's
disability and symptoms. 100 Mr. Myrick argues we should reverse ALJ Lash for relying too
heavily on his own testimony and not the medical evidence under Smith v. Califano. 101 In Smith,
the claimant suffered with a chronic ulcer disease for eighteen years and chronic anxiety. 102 In
finding the claimant not disabled, the ALJ discounted the claimant's and a doctor's testimony
about his disabling pain based on claimant's testimony "he had full use of his hands, arms and
legs, does shopping and last fall went hunting twice." 103 Our court of appeals reversed because
the ALJ erred in relying on claimant's sporadic activities to find the claimant did not have
disabling pain where there was no medical evidence contrary to the fact claimant suffered
disabling pain. 104
Mr. Myrick's case is much different. ALJ Lash relied on contrary medical evidence and
Mr. Myrick's testimony to find he had residual functioning capacity. In Smith, the ALJ found a

12

claimant not disabled based solely on his testimony where all medical evidence was in the
claimant's favor. 105 ALJ Lash did not err in considering Mr. Myrick's testimony about his daily
functioning because she also relied and cited his medical records and treatments to find he is not
disabled.
ALJ Lash's finding the objective medical evidence does not support the full extent of Mr.
Myrick's subjective complaints of pain is supported by substantial evidence including his
medical records from Dr. Gold, the imaging of his knees, hips, and back, and the lack of nonroutine or non-conservative treatment from the onset date of his disability.

B.

ALJ Lash's hypothetical question to the vocational expert properly included
Mr. Myrick's limitations.

Mr. Myrick argues ALJ Lash erred in relying on the vocational expert's testimony
because ALJ Lash's hypothetical questions "did not properly include the moderate limitations in
concentration, persistence or pace" found by ALJ Lash. 106 An ALJ's hypothetical must include
"all of a claimant's impairments that are supported by the record; otherwise the question is
deficient and the expert's answer to it cannot be considered substantial evidence." 107 Our court
of appeals directs the hypothetical question must "specifically convey" the limitations. 108
Based on his mental impairments, ALJ Lash found Mr. Myrick had "moderate
difficulties" maintaining his concentration, persistence, pace. 109 ALJ Lash found Mr. Myrick's
residual functional capacity to perform medium work had an additional limitation to "unskilled
work with routine, repetitive tasks secondary to a moderate limitation in the ability to maintain
concentration, persistence and pace." 110 In posing hypotheticals to the vocational expert, ALJ
Lash included this limitation in both her questions. 111
Mr. Myrick argues ALJ Lash's hypothetical questions addressed only the limitations on
complexity of the tasks, and not "his limitations in sustaining concentration and completing those
13

tasks in a timely manner." 112 We disagree. ALJ Lash's hypothetical addressed the complexity
of the tasks because it limited to "unskilled work with routine, repetitive tasks." ALJ Lash's
hypothetical also included Mr. Myrick's limitations on concentration because she qualified
unskilled work with a "moderate limitation in the ability to maintain, concentration, persistence,
and pace."
Mr. Myrick argues ALJ Lash erred based on our holding in McPherson v. Colvin, where
we remanded based on inadequacies in an ALJ's hypothetical question. 113 In McPherson, the
ALJ found Ms. McPherson had moderate deficiencies in concentration, persistence, and pace. 114
The ALJ then posed a hypothetical question with limitations of "routine, repetitive tasks," "a low
stress environment," and "no public interaction and occasional interaction with coworkers and
supervisors." 115

We found the ALJ's hypothetical question did not address all of Ms.

McPherson's limitations because a "limitation to 'routine, repetitive tasks' accounts for the skill
level required for the work, but necessarily the level of concentration required for the work" and
remanded the case. 116
Again, Mr. Myrick has a different case. ALJ Lash found Mr. Myrick had "moderate
difficulties" maintaining his concentration, persistence, pace and included this limitation in her
hypothetical by limiting him to unskilled work "secondary to a moderate limitation in the ability
to maintain concentration, persistence and pace." 117 Unlike McPherson, Mr. Myrick does not
identify a mental impairment found by ALJ Lash but not included as a limitation in her
hypothetical question to the vocational expert. We distinguish Mr. Myrick's objection because
ALJ Lash did not err in her hypothetical question to the vocational expert Mr. Dennison and did
not err in relying on the vocational expert's testimony as a result.

14

III.

Conclusion
In an accompanying order, we deny Mr. Myrick's Petition for Review and dismiss his

complaint. Our review today is not based on whether we would arrive at the same conclusion as
ALJ Lash. We only determine whether ALJ Lash's findings are based on substantial evidence
after considering the weight assigned to the adduced evidence. ALJ Lash provided adequate
reasons for finding the objective medical evidence do not support Mr. Myrick's subjective
complaints of pain and finding Mr. Myrick capable of medium work with additional limitations.
ALJ Lash also adequately included all of Mr. Myrick's limitations in her hypothetical to the
vocational expert and did not err in relying on the expert's testimony. We deny Mr. Myrick's
objections and affirm ALJ Lash's findings as supported by substantial evidence.

1

ECF Doc. No. 8, Social Security Administrative Record ("R.") at 41, 43.

2

R. 288.

3

R. 38.

4

R. 38.

5

R. 288.

6

R. 314.

7

R. 284.

8

R. 283.

9

R. 282.

IO

R. 282.

II

R. 258.

12

R. 258.
15

13

R. 21.

14

R. 290.

15

R. 76.

16

R. 289.

17

R. 290.

18

R. 78.

19

R. 79.

20

R. 79.

21

R. 367.

22

R. 370.

23

R. 388-390.

24

R. 345.

25

R. 347.

26

R. 378.

27

R. 356.

28

R. 357.

29

R. 545.

30R. 561.
31

R. 496.

32

R. 521.

33

R. 521.

34

R. 501.

16

35

R. 501.

36R. 501.
37 R. 502.
38

R. 502.

39

R. 502.

40

R. 464.

41

R. 464, 466.

42

R. 45.

43

R. 52, 205.

44

R. 52, 55.

45

R. 53, 206.

46

R. 53.

47

R. 60.

48

R. 209.

49

R. 209.

50

R. 211.

51

R. 59.

52

R. 57.

53

R. 43.

54

R. 21.

55 R. 21.
56R.21.
57 R. 21.
17

58

R. 31.

59

R. 30.

60

R. 23.

61

R. 24.

62

R. 24.

63

R. 24.

64

R. 6.

65

R. 26-27.

66

R. 27.

67

R. 28.

68

R. 28.

69

R. 30.

70

R. 26.

71

R.26.

72

R. 29.

73

R. 62.

74

R. 62.

75

R. 61-62.

76

R. 30.

77

ECF Doc. No. 13 at 4.

78

Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427
(3d Cir. 1999)).

18

79

Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607, 610 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d
546, 552 (3d Cir. 2005)).
80

Id. (quoting Rutherford, 399 F.3d at 552) (internal quotations omitted).

81

Id. (citingSchaudeckv. Comm'r, 181 F.3d429,431 (3dCir.1999)).

82

Trinh v. Astrue, 900 F. Supp. 2d 515, 518 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (citing Fargnoli v.Massanari, 247
F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001)).
83

42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(l)(D).

84

42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq.

85

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(l)(A); § 1382c(a)(3)(A).

86

Id. §§ 423(d)(2)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(B); Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 21-22 (2003).

87

Ramirez v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d 546, 550 (3d Cir. 2004).

88

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4).

89

Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i), 416.920(a)(4)(i) (mandating finding of non-disability if claimant is
engaged in substantial gainful activity).
90

Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(ii), 416.920(a)(4)(ii) (mandating finding of non-disability if claimant's
impairments are not severe).
91

Id.§§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iii), 416.920(a)(4)(iii).

92

Id.

93

Id. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(iv), 416.920(a)(4)(iv).

94

Fargnoli v. Halter, 247 F.3d 34, 40 (3d Cir. 2001).

95

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(v), 416.920(a)(4)(v). Plummer, 186 F.3d at 428.

96

R. 26.

97

Mason v. Shala/a, 994 F.2d 1058, 1067-68 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Ferguson v. Schweiker, 765
F.2d 31, 37 (3d Cir. 1985) and Carter v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 834 F.2d 62, 65 (3d Cir.
1986)).

98

R. 28.
19

99

R. 284.

100

20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(1).

101

637 F.3d 968 (3d Cir. 1981).

102

Id. at 970.

103

Id. at 971.

104

Id. at 972.

105

See id.

106

ECF Doc. No. 13 at 4.

107

Ramirez v. Barnhart, 372 F.3d 546, 552 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829
F.2d 1269, 1276 (3d Cir. 1987)).
10s

Id.

109

R. 25.

llOR.26.
Ill R. 61-62.
112

ECF Doc. No. 13 at 14.

113

No. 16-14-69, 2016 WL 5404471 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2016).

114

Id. at *8.

115

Id.

116

Id.

111R.25.

20