LADD v. COLVIN

Filing 17

ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED; THE COURT APPROVES AND ADOPTS THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF JUDGE SITARSKI; PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW 9 IS DENIED; AND, THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS ACTION CLOSED, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 09/25/2017. 09/25/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(nds)

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

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 15-6576

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2017, it is
hereby ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 14) are

OVERRULED;1

1

The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s
objections to Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski’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 Sitarski’s R&R has adequately relayed that
information.
The Court concludes that Judge Sitarski has correctly
and sufficiently addressed Plaintiff’s arguments, and, thus,
adopts her 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 err in concluding that Plaintiff had
moderate limitations in the areas of social functioning and
concentration, persistence, and pace, or that he did not meet
Listing 12.04 (regarding depressive, bipolar, and related
disorders). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ should have found
marked limitations in these two areas based on the findings of

his treating therapist, Mindy Biddle. Plaintiff also contends
that Judge Sitarski failed to identify any opinion evidence to
support her finding that the ALJ’s limitations were supported by
substantial evidence. The Court notes that, while the ALJ will
consider the opinions of medical sources, the ultimate decision
of whether an impairment meets or equals a listing is reserved
to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d).
The ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff had moderate
limitations in the areas of social functioning and
concentration, persistence and pace (and, thus, that Plaintiff
did not meet Listing 12.04) is supported by substantial
evidence. As stated by Judge Sitarski, the evidence of
Plaintiff’s ability to engage in social interaction and perform
activities of daily living, as well as most of the medical
records, support this finding. R&R at 13-14; Tr. at 14. This
conclusion is also supported by the opinion of state agency
psychological consultant, Dr. Alex Siegel, that Plaintiff did
not meet Listing 12.04. Tr. 65-70; see also Tr. 18. While Judge
Sitarski may not have mentioned Dr. Siegel by name in her
discussion of Listing 12.04, she explicitly explained later in
the R&R why the ALJ did not err in relying on Dr. Siegel. R&R at
21-22. Plaintiff is correct that Ms. Biddle indicated more
severe limitations. Tr. 606-11. However, the ALJ reasonably
explained why he did not find her medical assessment to be
persuasive, including that it conflicted with her longitudinal
treatment records. Tr. 16-18. Moreover, as explained by Judge
Sitarski, the fact that some evidence supports Plaintiff’s claim
does not mean that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by
substantial evidence. R&R at 14.
b.
The ALJ’s RFC assessment was supported by substantial
evidence. Plaintiff alleges that the moderate limitation found
by the ALJ in maintaining concentration, persistence and pace
was not adequately accommodated in the RFC assessment by
limiting Plaintiff to, inter alia, unskilled work that can be
learned in 30 days or less. Plaintiff continues that Judge
Sitarski failed to adequately address this issue.
Judge Sitarski detailed the evidence supporting the
ALJ’s RFC assessment and specifically addressed Plaintiff’s
argument. R&R at 15-16, 18-19. As she explained, our courts have
concluded that RFC limitations similar to those found by the ALJ
sufficiently account for moderate difficulties in concentration,
2

persistence, or pace. R&R at 18-19. The Court finds no error
regarding this issue.
c.
The ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinion evidence
was supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff argues that the
ALJ should not have given significant weight to the opinion of
Dr. Siegel because he rendered his opinion before a substantial
portion of the medical evidence was in the record, or at least
should have had a medical expert provide an updated opinion.
As stated by Judge Sitarski, the ALJ did not merely
rely on Dr. Siegel’s opinion in a vacuum, but compared it to the
entire record and found it consistent therewith. R&R 21-22; Tr.
18. Moreover, Judge Sitarski correctly noted that the record did
not document any significant intervening changes in Plaintiff’s
medical condition between the date of Dr. Siegel’s opinion and
the decision of the ALJ. R&R at 22. The Court agrees with Judge
Sitarski that Dr. Siegel’s opinion is supported by the record.
d.
The ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by
substantial evidence. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ should not
have reduced the credibility of his testimony based on: (1) his
conservative treatment given the severe restrictions suggested
by Ms. Biddle; and (2) his ability to perform activities of
daily living.
As explained by Judge Sitarski, the ALJ’s credibility
determination must be supported by substantial evidence and be
specific enough to enable judicial review. R&R 23. The ALJ
stated clearly and in detail the reasons why he found
Plaintiff’s testimony less than fully credible. R&R 23-25; Tr.
16-17. The ALJ also adequately explained why he discounted the
opinion of Ms. Biddle. Tr. 17-18. It is true that the ability to
perform sporadic activities of daily living is not indicative of
the ability to perform full time work. However, daily activities
are specifically to be considered by the ALJ, 20 C.F.R. §
416.929(c)(3), and here, the ALJ properly considered those
activities in conjunction with the medical evidence. Thus, the
Court finds no error.
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

(2)

The Court APPROVES and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge

Lynne A. Sitarski’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13);
(3)

Plaintiff’s request for review (ECF No. 9) 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.

4