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, )

Download PDF
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

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?