Webber v. Astrue

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM re MOTION to Alter Judgment 19 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 05/22/14. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES G. WEBBER,
Plaintiff
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-2558

MEMORANDUM
Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend judgment entered
in this court on January 2, 2014. (Doc. 19.) The challenged order granted judgment
against Plaintiff in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security. (Docs. 17 & 18.)
For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.
Plaintiff argues that the court misconstrued the Administrative Law
Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding on the issues of moderate difficulties with concentration,
persistence, or pace. The ALJ found as follows:
[Plaintiff] has had moderate difficulties with concentration,
persistence, and pace; but he has not had any episodes of
decompensation of an extended duration.
(Doc. 17 at 27.) In reviewing the ALJ’s findings, the court stated that:
Clearly, the plain language of the ALJ’s decision
demonstrates that the adjudicator found that Plaintiff had
moderate difficulties in his ability to sufficiently sustain
focused attention commonly found in work settings, but
does not demonstrate that the adjudicator found the
limitations still existed. Indeed, the evidence of record
does not support a finding that Plaintiff had, as of the date
he was adjudicated, moderate difficulties with
concentration, persistence, or pace.

(Doc. 17 at p. 26.) Plaintiff argues that the use of “has had” is the present perfect
tense which is used “to express actions . . . that began in the past and continue in the
present.” (Doc. 20 at 3.) Plaintiff further argues if the ALJ had only used the word
“had,” he would have been referring to limitations which existed in the past but no
longer existed. (Id.)
In an imperfect world, the present perfect tense is used less than
perfectly. Accordingly, word combinations take on a common sense usage, or
colloquialisms; thus, “ has had” – to many speakers – means past tense. In any
event, the “has had” finding is qualified by the last clause, “but has not had any
episodes of decompensation of an extended duration,” which implies there has not
been any ongoing difficulties with concentration, persistence, or pace.
Furthermore, the ALJ incorporated Plaintiff’s limitations by including
in the hypothetical posed to the expert the restrictions of simple, routine, sedentary
work tasks of an unskilled nature in a stable work environment. This hypothetical
adequately conveyed Plaintiff’s limitations. See Menkes v. Astrue, 262 F. Appx.
410, 412 (3d Cir. 2008).
Thus, this court did not misinterpret the findings of the ALJ. An
appropriate order will be issued.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: May 22, 2014.

2