LAFFERTY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Filing 20

ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO REMOVE THIS ACTION FROM THE SUSPENSE DOCKET ND RETURN IT TO THE ACTIVE DOCKET. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 11/3/16. 11/4/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP GEORGE LAFFERTY
Plaintiff,

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-5096

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECUIRITY
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Philip Lafferty filed this rtion under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3),
requesting judicial review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration ("Commissioner' ), denying his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits
and Supplemental Security Income. This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate
Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, who ha issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that
the Commissioner's decision be affirmed. No objections to the R&R have been filed.
The Commissioner affirmed the

d~cision

of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"), who

found that although Plaintiff suffered from certain severe impairments, he retained the residual
functional capacity to perform medium w rk, subject to certain limitations, and therefore was not
disabled. In his request for review, Mr. L fferty argued that the ALJ erred in finding that
Plaintiff could perform medium unskille work because he is unable to lift and carry more than
25 pounds, while medium work requires le ability to lift up to 50 pounds. The Magistrate Judge
determined that the ALJ' s decision was s1'1pported by substantial evidence. Because no
objections to the R&R were filed, the Cmlrrt is not required to conduct a de nova review and has
the discretion to "accept, reject, or

modif~, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations"

of the Magistrate Judge. 1 Nevertheless, the Court has carefully considered the administrative

I

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).

record and the R&R, and agrees with the iagistrate Judge's recommendation. As explained in
the R&R, although the ALJ erred in failing to address a lifting limitation noted by Dr. Le, a state
agency consultative examiner, another staJe agency consultant, Dr. Legaspi, performed a records
review that included Dr. Le's records. Dr. Legaspi specifically found that Plaintiff was capable
of occasionally lifting 50 pounds, and this opinion was supported by the lack of any objective
medical evidence suggesting Plaintiff could not meet this requirement. 2 Therefore, substantial
evidence supported the ALJ' s opinion thJ Plaintiff could perform medium work.

AND NOW, this 3rd day ofNove1ber 2016, after careful review and independent
consideration of the administrative

recordj~d

of the Report and Recommendation of United

States Magistrate Carol Sandra Moore We:lls [Doc. No. 18], to which no objections have been
filed, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Clerk of Court is directed to remove this action from the suspense docket and

return it to the active docket;
2.

The Report and Recommeidation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; and

3.

Plaintiffs Petition for Revilew [Doc. No. 13] is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

2

R&R at 10-11.

2