Gross v. Colvin

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff ' s appea l of the cting Commissi oner's denial of benefits (Doc. 1) is denied. An appropriate Order is filed simultaneously with this Memorandum.Signed by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 6/5/15. (cc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOUGLAS A. GROSS,

:CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-1946
Plaintiff,
(JUDGE CONABOY)

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner
Social Security,

0

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

Here we cons

Plaintiff's appeal from the Commissioner's

denial of Dis

lity Insurance Benefits

Security Income

("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social

Security Act ("Act").

(Doc. 1.)

("DIB") and Supplemental

The Administrative Law Judge

("ALJ") who evaluated the claim concluded that Plaintiff's
impairments of varicose veins,
obstruct

severe

sity, hypertension, pancreatitis,

sleep apnea, depressive

did not meet or equal the listings.

sorder and anx
(R.

82-83.)

y disorder

The ALJ found

that Plaintiff had the residual function capacity ("RFC")

to

perform sedentary work with certain limitations and that such work
was available.
claim for

(R.

fits.

85-89.)
(R.

90.)

The ALJ therefore denied Plaintiff's
With this action,

Plaintiff argues

that the decision of the Social Security Administration is error
because the ALJ did not give appropriate weight t

Plaintiff's

subjective complaints of testicular pain related to varicoceles and
the ALJ's RFC and step five determination were flawed in that they

did not take the testicular pain into account.
For the reasons

(Doc.

18 at 2-15.)

scussed below, we conclude Plaintiff's appeal of

the Acting Commissioner's decision is properly denied.
I.Background
Procedura~

Background

On December 16, 2011,

Plaintiff protectively filed

applications for DIB and SSI.

(R. 80.)

On both applications, the

claimant alleged disability

inning on November 26,

2011.

(Id. )

Plaintiff stated that he applied for benefits because his ability
to work was limited by
(R.238.)

trouble sleeping.
.arch 30, 2012.

ssion, pancreatitis, varicose veins and

(R. 181-88.)

review before an ALJ on
2013,

The claims were initially denied on
PIa

iff filed a request for a

il 20, 2012.

(R.

189.)

On March 20,

Plaintiff, with his attorney, appeared at a hearing before

LJ Susan Torres.

(R.

97.)

Vocational

also testified at the hearing.

(Id. )

unfavorable decision on May 29, 2013,
not disabled under
period.

(R.

rt Joseph

Doherty

The ALJ issued her
finding

Plaintiff was

Social Security Act during the relevant time

90.)

On June 7, 2013,
ppeal's Council.

(R.

Plaintiff filed a Request for Review with the
75-76.)

The Appeals Council denied

Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision on August 4,
2014.
decis

(R.

1-6.)

In doing so, the ALJ's

of the Acting Commissioner.

2

(R.

cis ion became the
1.)

On October 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed his action in this Court
appealing the Acting Commissioner's decision.

(Doc. 1.)

Defendant

filed her answer and the Social Security Administration transcript
on

23,

r

rt

(Do c s. 9 , 1 0 . )

2014.

Plaintiff filed his

brief (Doc. 18) on April 8, 2015, a

er having requested

and been granted two extensions of time within which to do so
(Docs. 11 , 12 , 16 , 1 7) .
(Doc. 19.)

May 7, 2015.
28,

2015.

Defendant filed her opposition brief on

(Doc. 22.)

Plaintiff filed his

y brief on May

Therefore, this matter is

r

disposition.
Background

Factua~

PIa

iff was born on July 18, 1972, and was thirty-nine years
disability onset

old on the all
a hi

education.

s

K-Cab.

(R.

103.)

(Id. )

PIa

(R. 89.)

Plaintiff last wor

Plaintiff testified that

iff has

as a driver
st

working

because
I was worried that my concentration was
my focus was bad and I just got to the point
with like sitting all the time.
. in t
cab it was bothering me with my groin area,
stuff like that and I couldn't
al with it
and I was afraid that I was going to end up
doing something wrong while I was drivi
(R.

103.)

1.

Impairment Evidence

a.

Physica~

Impairment Treatment Records and Notes

Because Plaintiff's objections to the ALJ's decision related
3

to the improper consideration of his testicular pain, we will focus
prima

lyon the records related to that condition.
On

i I I , 2008,

with complaints of

Plaintiff was seen at Alley Medical Center

adache and testicular pain.

(R.

522.)

He

reported that the onset of the pain was acute and had been
occurring for one week in an intermittent
7, 2008, radiology r

On

.)

An April

indicated large varicocele bilaterraly
rally.

hydrocele bi

and

tern.

(R.

343.)

ril 14, 2008, Plaintiff was seen at Berwick Hospital for

scrotal or groin pain which he reported he had been having for
about two weeks.

7. )

(R.

Plaintiff had bilateral pain and rated

the pain in his right testicle at n
(R.

33132.)

on a scale of one to ten.

The recorded impression was acute epididymitis and

acute orchiditis.

(R.

with prescriptions for
up with Dr. Aldo Sur

333.)

Plaintiff was discharged t

same day

and percocet and directions to follow
(Id. )

Plaintiff underwent surgery for bilateral varicocele on August
8,

2008.

(R.

298.)

Plaintiff reportedly tolerated the procedure

well and was discharged the same day with oral pain medication.
(R.

299.)

When Plaintiff was seen with compla nts of a cough on October
21, 2008, his "Problem List/Past Medical" information did not
include groin or testicular pain; "no known medications" was
recorded under "Medication History."

4

(R.

O. )

On January 13, 2009, P1aintif

had a scrotal ultrasound which

showed bilateral varicoceles, unremar
right epididymal cyst.

(R.

652.)

Ie testicles, and a tiny

The nHhistory" portion of the

report indicated n[s]crotal varices, status post bilateral
varicoce

repair with persistent pain."

On January 15, 2009,
chest pa

(R.

the recorded

511.)

Plaintiff was seen with complaints

0

No scrotal or testicular pain was noted in

ew of systems.

On

(Id. )

(Id. )

ry 24, 2009, Plaintiff was seen for a preoperative

history and

ical.

(R.

309, 656.)

He was scheduled for surgery

on March 11, 2009, for scrotal exploration and epididymal cyst
excision.
On

(R.

309,

656.)

st 19, 2009,

as sinusitis.

(R.

509.)

Plaintiff was seen for what he descr
He was treated for that problem, and the

assessment also noted lower extremity varicose vein.
fter having tried conservative treatment,
his left leg on March 26, 2010.

(R.

(R.

510.)

Plaintiff had surgery on

31415.)

The following

findings were recorded: "Positive greater saphenous vein reflux.
positive varicose veins.

Status post

. greater

saphenous vein was ablated and varicose veins removed."
had similar surgery on the right side on

ril 2, 2010.

(Id. )
(R.

321.)

The review of systems conducted at a May 14, 2010, office
visit where Plaintiff complained of malaise and abdominal pain
indicates that Plaintiff did not have any male genitourinary

5

He

symptoms.

(R.

498.)

On May 16, 2010, Plaintiff was admitted to CMC-Geisinger
Medical Center.
2010 with a

(R.352.)

agnosis of acute pancreatitis most likely

gallstone/sludge related.
tectomy

chol

Plaintiff was discharged on May 20,

(Id.)

Plaintiff underwent laparascopic

general surgery.

(Id. )

procedure well, and his pain improved.

( Id. )

systems at the time indicates Plaintiff
symptoms.

(R.

Plaintif

He tolerated the
The

ew of

ied any genitourinary

376.)

was again admitted on May 26, 2010, and discharged

on May 29, 2010,

th a diagnosis of acute pancreat

is.

(R.423.)

He was started on conservative treatment with pain medication and
his pain improved.

( Id. )

On May 10, 2011, Plaintiff was seen in Geis

r's emergency

edicine department with complaints of right testicular
ation into the abdomen.

(R.

541.)

in with

Plaintiff stated that the

pain had been gradually worsening over the

week.

Ultrasound revealed bilateral varicoceles,

hydrocele,

(Id. )

right

scrotal wall thickening but unremarkable and symmetric testicles.
(R.

543.)

Plaintiff was diagnosed with

abdominal pain of

uncertain etiology and bilateral varicoceles.
to treat the abdominal pain and it was
his uro

st.

(Id. )

The plan was

sted he follow up with

(Id. )

Two days later Plaintiff again presented to the emergency
6

edicine department w
(R. 526.)

time, he had no primary care physician and no

At

insurance.

abdominal pain, headache, and groin pain.

(R.

528.)

the abdominal

The May 12, 2011, vis

notes indicate that

n no longer radiated to the testicles but radiated

to his mid back.

(R. 526.)

On August 11, 2011, Plaintiff visited Columbia County
Volunteers in Medicine for the first t
nal pain over the

complained of

723.)

He

week.

(R.

(Id. )

assessment was possible mild pancreatitis.

(Id. )

directed to restrict his diet to clear 1

The

ds for twenty-

hours and go to the ER for any severe pa

(Id. )

provided a note to excuse him from work
plaintiff report
2011, visit.

(R.

he was feeling much
720.)

Plaintiff was

He was also

ies for the week.

(Id. )

tter at his September 16,

He was still having abdominal discomfort

at his November 29, 2011, visit.

(R.

719.)

On February 24, 2012, Plaintiff was seen by Maliyakkal John,
M.D., a consultative examiner.

(R. 732 38.)

Plaintiff's personal

history includes the following: "He says that he gets heada
and on for a

e of days [J a week lasting for about an hour or

two, mostly the frontal headache.
concentrate

s off

He also states that he cannot

on any given assignment.

that he cannot work anymore."

(R.

737.)

So, he told his boss

In the Review of

stems,

Dr. John noted that Plaintiff has a "[history of headache for the
past three months.

He has not seen any

7

ician or sought any

edical advice for that.
igraine in the

st."

No history of head trauma.
(Id. )

unremarkable as was the

The Review of Systems was otherwise

ical examination except under

"Genitilia" Dr. John noted that

ntiff had "swelling of both

testicles more on the right s
738. )

No history of

and diffuse tenderness."

(R.

Dr. John recorded the following assessment: "Recent onset of

headache, etiology unclear; varicose veins of testicles with three
surgeries so far.

Varicose veins of both legs, which is almost

surgical

corrected

ervention.

of the testicle, and varicose ve
titis."

(R.

Chronic

, varicocele

of both legs.

Chronic

738.)

On June 21, 2012, Plaintiff was seen at Geis
Hottenstein, M.D., as a new patient.
notes Plaintiff had been

(R.

810.)

r by Jos
Jr. Hottenstein

ng to the free clinic and was now on

ccess and seeking permanent disability due to anx
(Id. )

The notes also indicate Plaintiff

scrotal var

ty/depression.

ed he had "recurrent

s, painful after standing," diabetes,
ety, and occasional

depression/

included scrotal varices.

(R.

811.)

artburn.

(Id. )

His diagnosis

Plaintiff's genitourinary

exam showed "testicles normal, tender varicocele bilaterally."
812. )

The plan included to refer him to urology for this

condition.

D.

(R.

813.)

On July 9, 2012, Plaintiff had an ultrasound of the scrotum
because of painful varicoceles.

(R.823.)

8

The

ression was

(R.

ilateral varicoceles and small left hydrocele.

(Id. )

with urology for further treatment was recommended.

Follow up

(R. 825.)

At Plaintiff's August 2, 2012, office visit for follow up with
Dr. Hottenstein, Plaintiff reported that he was doi
sle
ps

ng poorly.

(R. 827.)

He was going to discuss this with a

iatrist "soon" (Plaintiff was already ta

reported wa

ok but

ng Remeron but

up two hours after going to sleep)

diagnoses include bilateral varicoceles.

(Id. )

The

(R.827.)

This

or related symptoms were not otherwise discussed in
the treatment notes.
return in two months.
On

(See

R. 427-29.)

PIa

iff was instructed to

(R. 829.)

st 6, 2012, Plaintiff saw Jennifer S

Geisinger's urology department, Plaintiff r

s, M.D., at

return of pain

and swelling related to his scrotal problem one year after being
treated su

cally in 2009.

(R.840.)

The following was also

recorded:
He has pain almost all the time.
Sometimes
it is on the right and sometimes on the left.
The pain is moderate to severe 6-10 depending
on what he is doing. Activity seems to make
it worse.
Lifting seems to make it worse.
Laying down does not reliable relieve the
pain.
He notes the left s
is larger than
the right.
He tries to s
down and relax to
make the pain lighten up.
The right sided
pain is often worse than the left.
He tries
ibuprofen and tylenol with little relief.
He
wears boxer briefs for s
(R. 840.)

Plaintiff reported the pain to be five on a scale of one

to ten at the time of the visit, and he
9

rted the pain to be

continuous.

(R.

84l.)

Dr. Simmons prescribed Gabapentin.

(R.

842. )

At the October 4, 2012,

follow-up visit,

Dr. Hottenstein

reviewed Plaintiff's diabetes, obesity and varicoceles.

(R.

888.)

He noted that Plaintiff was on Gabamentin and urology declined to
operate.

His plan was for Plaintiff to continue on the

(Id. )

Gabapentin.

(R.

On November 26,
905. )

He was to return in three months.

890.)

2012,

Plaintiff again saw Dr. Simmons.

She recorded the same history as that of August 6,

adding that the Gabapentin had "helped about 70%."
840. )

(Id. )

In her assessmesnt/plan,

(Id.;

(R.

2012,

see R.

Dr. Simmons noted that Gabapentin

was working for the scrotal pain and she would continue it at 800
g. twice a day for three more months and then slowly wean over the
fourth month.

(R.

905.)

Plaintiff was not having pain at the time

of the visit.

(R.

906.)

Plaintiff was to return in three months.

(R.

910.)

On January 10, 2013,

Plaintiff was seen at Dr. Hottenstein's

office for follow up.

(R.

912-13.)

"feeling ok overall."

(R.

913.)

Plaintiff reported that he was

He was taking Gabapentin at the

time, the office visit notes indicating he would start to wean off
it in ninety days.

(R.

914.)

Physical examination showed that

generally Plaintiff was alert and in no distress.

(R.

915.)

Other

than being listed in the Active Problem List, no other reference is
ade to Plaintiff's bilateral varicoceles at this visit--the

10

ssessment/Plan addressed Plaintiff's diabetes, eczema,

1

demia, and the need for pneumonia and flu vaccines.
Plaintiff was directed to return in three months.

Menta~

(Id. )

Impairment Treatment Evidence and Notes

There is very little reference to Pla
his visits to his treating physicians.
2009,

(R.

iff's mental health in

For example, in January

no mental health issues were identified in Plainti f's

"Problem List/Past Medical. u

(R. 511.)

January and May 2010 visits.

(R.

498,

The same is true of his
602.)

Plaintiff's 2011

records do not indicate mental health issues until November.
R.

530-33,

719,

720,

(See

Because of the limited scope of the

723.)

claimed errors, we will briefly review mental health evidence.
At Plaintiff's November 29, 2011,
Volunteers in Medicine, anxiety is noted.
appear that he was prescribed medicat

sit to Columbia County
(R.

719.)

It does not

for the condition.

(Id. )

Plaintiff was referred for psycholog cal evaluation to Sue
Labar Yohey, M.Ed., who completed a consultative examination report
dated March 9, 2012.

(R.

Yohey that "he leaves j

742-51.)

He

indicated to Dr.

s because he feels he becomes 'a burden to

the job,' and 'bothersome.'
with headaches.

Plaintif

He reports that he was frequently ill
of disability himself.u

(R.

743.)

Plaintiff told Dr. Yohey that he did not think he would be able "to
aintain regular attendance at a daily job or appointment.
indicates this is becaus

He

of the lack of sleep, headaches and his

11

lack of concentration."
had two sess

(R. 747.)

Dr.

noted that Plaintiff

of counseling at the Miffli

called CMSU whil
services there.

lIe Clinic and she

he was in the office, hopi
(R. 744.)

he would get

She observed t

Plaintiff's motor

behavior, affect and cultural development were appropriate.
In her summary, Dr. Yohey concluded that PIa
signs and

oms consistent with a

a

Yohey

iff was showing

ssive

had discovered that he had a history of

(Id. )

sorder and she

c attacks.

(Id. )

Dr.

cal Source Statement of Ability to Do Work-

Related Activities (Mental) which will be rev

in the Opinion

which follows.

Evidence sect

As noted above, Plaintiff reported to Dr. Hottenstein at
Geisinger on June 21, 2012, that he was seeking permanent
disability

to anxiety and depression.

(R.

iff reported that his

notes indicate PIa

cks up sometimes in

Office visit

ssion/anxiety was

not controlled by Remeron and he had some
because "anxiety

810.)

of public places
ic places."

(Id. )

He

had begun treatment at CMSU the previous month and had a follow up
there in two months.

(Id. )

Dr. Hottenstein added: "He says most

days he wants to die, won't tell me what his plan would be, but
never sets a date or has an intention becaus
that to his mom."

(Id.)

At the time, Plaintiff was taking one

half tablet of Remeron at bedtime.
planned to try to

n't want to do

(R.

811.)

te Plaintiff's ps

12

Dr. Hottenstein

iatric appointment

follow up.

(R. 812.)

At Plainti f's August 2, 2012, office visit, Dr. Hottenstein
included

ety and depression in Plaintiff's Active

Problem/Diagnoses list.

(R.

827.)

He noted

Plaintiff's

"anxiety state" that Plaintiff was doing well but sl
(R.

ng poorly.

829.)
In a

atric Evaluation dated May 1, 2012,

Gerstman, D.O., found Plaintiff to be cooperative with fair eye
contact, "sad" mood, restricted affect, goal directed
processes, intact cognition, and appropriate insi
(R.

778.)

and judgment.

Dr. Gerstman found Plaintiff's "[t]hought content was

absent for t

of self-harm or harm to others; absent for

auditory hallucinations or delusions."

(Id. )

He recorded the

following Diagnostic Impression: Axis I - Social Anxiety Disorder
and Poly-Substance
Defer

with long-term remission; Axis II ­
History of pancreatitis; Axis IV

sIll

stressors; and Axis V

GAF 50.

(R.

779.)

multiple

Dr. Gerstman

recommended a trial of Remeron 15 mg. to 30 mg. at night and
follow-up in two months.

(Id. )

Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Gerstman at CMSU on August 14, 2012.
(R.

777.)

He reported that the Remeron 15 mg. helped "take the

edge off" but sleep remained an issue.
recorded as "sli
and insight.

(Id.)

ly

(Id. )

Plaintiff's mood was

ous," he was alert, and had good j
Social anxiety disorder is recorded as

13

Plaintiff's Axis I diagnosis; no notations are made for Axis II
through Axis V) .

(Id. )

The plan was to increase the Remeron to 30

g. and take Ambien 10 mg. at night if needed to sleep.
At Plaintiff's October 16, 2012, visit to CMSU,
ectively Plaintiff

recorded that

g. so returned to t

you.

1f

(R.

776.)

~however

with sleep, and

social anx

s the best to

Dr. Gerstman's findings were similar to

those of Plaintiff's

visit except t

reported to be

Plaintiff's mood was

c rather than slightly anxious.

Plaintiff's Axis I assessment was bipolar diso
On February 19, 2013,

~it's

~takes

he could not
the edge off,1f

still there; still having mood swings. 1f

Plaintiff's mood was anxious and irritable, and
judgment fair.
anxiety diso

(Id. )

(R.

775.)

s insight and

Dr. Gerstman's assessment was Axis I social

r and Axis III chronic pain issues.

was to discontinue the Remeron and Ambien,

(Id. )

His plan

increase the Gabapentin

n, 75 mg. at night.

to 800 mg., and add
c.

(Id. )
(Id. )

Plaintiff reported

tolerate the 30 mg. Remeron but the 15 mg
adding

Dr. Gerstman

er taking Remeron 15

dosage, Ambien was

he was getting out more
[sic]

It

(Id. )

.)

ppinion Evidence
A February 24,

2012,

report from consultative examiner

aliyakkal John, M.D., indicates that Plaintiff had the capacity to
lift and carry twenty-five pounds frequently and fifty pounds
occasionally, he could stand and walk for one to two hours in an

14

sit for less than six hours.

eight hour
could f

ly perform all postural act
other physical

limitations rega

restrictions and range of motion.

(R.

(R.

732.)

He

ties, and had no
tions, environmental

732 33.)

assessment is reviewed with the medical evi

Dr. John's
above.

As noted above, the record contains a consultative examination
report from Sue

r Yohey, M.Ed., dated March 9, 2012, to whom

Plaintiff was referred for psychological evaluation.

(R.

742-51.)

Dr. Yohey completed a Medical Source Statement of Ability to Do
Work-Related Activities (Mental).

(R.

750-51.)

She specifically

concluded that Plaintiff's ability to understand, remember and
carry out instructions was slightly to moderately affected by his
impairment.

(R. 750.)

His ability to re

appropriately to

supervisors, co-workers, and work pressures in a work setting was
similarly affected.
In the

29,

(Id. )

2012,

Disability Determination Explanation

Plaintiff was found not to be disabled based on non-severe
disorders of the male genital organs
163-170.)

physical I

af

ctive disorders.

(R.

Dr. John's opinion was found to overestimate the
ations/restrictions in lift

, carrying and sitt

in that the limitations were not s

ed

and other med cal evidence.

Further, the Explanation

(R.

169.)

clinical examination

states that the opinion relies heavily on the subjective report of
symptoms and limitations provided by PIa ntiff--it is an

15

overestimate of the severity of Plaintiff's
restrictions/limitations and "based only on a snapshot of [his]
functioning."

(R.

170.)

Dr. Yohey's opinion was given great

weight in that the findings concerning Plaintiff's abilities in the
areas of making occupational adjustments, rna
adjustments, rna

performance

ng personal and social adjustments and other work

related activities were fairly consistent with the ot
in the file.
2.

(R.

r evidence

169.)

Function Reports and ALJ Hearing Testimony

In the "Function Report - Adult" Plaintiff stated that his
il

uries, or conditions limit his ability to work based

sses,

, standing and sitting for long periods, and bad

on concentrat
groin pain.
about ei

(R.

259.)

He reported that he has had the pain for

years but it has gotten worse, it spreads from his

groin to his back, the pain is worse at certain t
and is constant but inconsistent.

(R.267.)

s of the day

He also

s that

he has pressure in his head as well as the groin pain.

(Id. )

At the outset of the ALJ hearing, Plaintiff's attorney
acknowl

Plaintiff's mental health issues but stated that his

groin pain was a more serious problem.
testi

that he st

(R.

101-02.)

Plainti f

working because he was worried that his

concentration and focus were bad, sitting all the t w a s
bothering his groin area, and he couldn't deal with it and was
afraid he would do something wrong while he was driving.

16

(R.

103.)

He stated that medication takes the edge off the pain but it's
"uncontrollable."

(R. 104.)

He est

that the medication,

Gabapentin, takes the pain from ten down to seven or ei
scale of one to ten, and down to a two or
(R.

116.)

Plaintiff reported

if

lies down.

lying down was the best position

for him regarding the groin pain and it bothers him to s
same spot for a long t
was pl

(R.

109.)

Plaintiff also stated

problem.

(R.

118.)

ALJ Decision
By

sion of October 22,

2012, ALJ Torres

Plaintiff was not disabled as defined
(R.

in t

in the near future to go for another opinion about

what could be done to address his gro

3.

on a

27.)

rmined that

the Social Security Act.

She made the following findings of fact and conclusions

of law:
1.

The cIa
meets the ins
status
requirements of
Social Security Act
through December 31, 2014.

2 .

cIa
has not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since
November 26, 2011, the all
onset
date (20 CFR 404.1571 et s
416.971 et s
.).

3.

The claimant has the following severe
impairments: varicose veins, obesity,
hypertension, pancreatitis, obstructive
sleep apnea,
ssive disorder and
anxiety disorder (20 CFR 404.1520(c) and
416.920(c)).

4.

The claimant does not have an impairment
or combination of impairments that meets
or medically
Is the severity of one
17

of the listed impairments in 20 eFR Part
404, Subpart P,
ndix 1 (20 eFR
404.1520 (d), 404.1525, 404.1 6,
416.920 (d), 416.925 and 416.926) .
5.

After careful consideration of the
entire record, the undersigned finds
the claimant has the resi
1
functional
ty to per
sedentary
work as defined in 20 eFR 404.1567(a)
and 416.967(a) except the claimant must
never climb ladders, r
s or scaf 1
He must avoid concentrated prol
exposure to loud noises, vibrat
fumes, odors, dusts, gases,
ventilation and hazards such as heights
and moving machinery.
The claimant
could understand, remember and carry out
s
le instructions in an environment
free of fast
production
requirements nvolving only simple work
related decisions with few work place
changes.
The claimant could
occasionally interact with supervisors,
co-workers and the public.

6.

The claimant is unable to per rm any
past relevant work (20 eFR 404.1565 and
416.965) .

7.

The claimant was born on July 18, 1972
and was 39 years old, which is defined
as a younger individual age 18 44, on
the all
disability onset date (20
eFR 404.1563 and 416.963).

8.

The claimant has at least a
school
education and is able to
cate in
English (20 eFR 404.1564 and 416.964)

9.

Transferability of job skills is not
material to the determination of
disability because using the Medical­
Vocational Rules as a framework supports
a finding that the claimant is "not
disabled N , whether or not the claimant
has transferable job skills (See SSR 82­
41 and 20 eFR Part 404, Subpart P,
18

Appendix 2) .
10. Considering the claimant's age,
education, work experience, and residual
functional capacity, there are jobs that
exist in significant numbers in the
national economy that the claimant can
perform (20 CFR 404.1569, 404.1569 (a) ,
416.969, and 416.969 (a)) .
11. The claimant has not been under a
disability, as defined in the Social
Security Act from November 26, 2011,
through the date of this decision (20
CFR 404.1520 (g) and 416.920 (g)) .
(R.82-90.)
Because Plaintiff's alleged errors relate to his
testicular/groin pain, we focus on this aspect of the ALJ decision.
The ALJ found that Plaintiff's medically determinable impairments
could be expected to cause his alleged symptoms but his "statements
regarding the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these
symptoms are not entirely credible for the reasons explained in
this decision."

(R. 86.)

The ALJ noted that the groin pain was

controlled with Gabapentin (R. 87

(citing Exhibits 20F, 22F,

23F

and 24F)) and that "the records confirm pain or discomfort related
to veins in the scrotum but the findings support an ability to
perform sedentary work"

(R. 88).

The ALJ states that her "finding

is consistent with the objective medical evidence including
diagnostic testing and measurable findings on clinical examinations
[as well as his] activity level as indicated by his stated ability
to cook, clean, vacuum, shop and perform personal care activities."
(Id. )

19

II. Disability Determination Process

The Commissioner is required to use a five-step analysis to
determine whether a claimant is disabled.
Commissioner to ascertain:

1

It is necessary for the

1) whether the applicant is engaged in a

substantial activity; 2) whether the applicant is severely
impaired; 3) whether the impairment matches or is equal to the
requirements of one of the listed impairments, whereby he qualifies
for benefits without further inquiry; 4)

whether the claimant can

perform his past work; 5) whether the claimant's impairment
together with his age, education, and past work experiences
preclude him from doing any other sort of work.
404.1520(b ) -(g),
521, 110 S. Ct.

416.920(b)-(g); see Sullivan v.
885,

20 C.F.R. §§

Zebley,

493 u.s.

888 - 89 (1990).

"Disability" is defined as 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 that 12 months
"
42 U.S.C.
§ 423 (d) (1) (A)
The Act further provides that an individual is
disabled
only if his physical or mental impairment or
impairments are of such severity that he is not
only unable to do his previous work but cannot,
considering his age, education, and work
experience, engage in any other kind o f
substantial gainful work which exists in the
national economy, regardless of whether such
work exists in the immediate area in which he
lives, or whether a specific job vaca ncy exists
for him, or whether he would be hired if he
applied for work.
42 U.S.C. § 423 (d) (2) (A) .
20

If the

irments do not meet or equal a listed impairment,

the ALJ makes a fi

about the claimant's residual functional

capacity based on all the relevant medical evidence and other
evidence in the case record.
The residual

20 C.F.R.

§

404.1520(e); 416.920(e)

ional capacity assessment is then used at
of the evaluation process.

fourth and fifth s

Id.

The disability determination involves shifting burdens of
proof.

The initial burden rests with the cIa

to demonstrate

that he or she is unable to engage in his or her past relevant
work.

If the claimant satisfies this burden, then the Commissioner
st in the national e

ust show that jobs

with the claimant's abilit
can perform.

s, age, education, and work experience

Mason v. Shalala,

993 F.2d 1058, 1064

instant decis

As set out

that a person

(3d Cir. 1993)

was decided at the

fth step of the process when the ALJ found there are jobs that
exist in the national economy that Plaintiff is able to perform.
(R. 89-90.)
III. Standard of Review

This Court's rev

of

Commissioner's final decision is
there is substantial evidence to

limited to determining

support the Commissioner's decision.

42 U.S.C.

v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999).

a

405(g); Hartranft

Substantial evidence

It means such relevant evidence

.eans "more than a mere scintilla.
as a reasonable mind mi

§

as adequate to support a

21

conclusion."

Richardson v.

also Cotter v. Harris,

Perales,

402 u.s. 389,

642 F.2d 700, 704

401

(1971); see

(3d Cir. 1981)

The Third

Circuit Court of Appeals further explained this standard in Kent v.
Schweiker, 710 F.2d 110

(3d Cir. 1983).

This oft-cited language is not
. a
talismanic or self-executing formula for
adjudication; rather, our decisions make
clear that determination of the existence vel
non of substantial evidence is not merely a
quantitative exercise.
A single piece of
evidence will not satisfy the substantiality
test if the Secretary ignores, or fails to
resolve, a conflict created by countervailing
evidence.
Nor is evidence substantial if it
is overwhelmed by other evidence-­
particularly certain types of evidence (e.g.,
that offered by treating physicians)--or if
it really constitutes not evidence but mere
conclusion.
See [Cotter, 642 F.2dJ at 706
("'Substantial evidence' can only be
considered as supporting evidence in
relationship to all the other evidence in the
record.") (footnote omitted).
The search for
substantial evidence is thus a qualitative
exercise without which our review of social
security disability cases ceases to be merely
deferential and becomes instead a sham.
710 F.2d at 114.
This guidance makes clear it is necessary for the Secretary to
analyze all evidence.

If she has not done so and has not

sufficiently explained the weight given to all probative exhibits,
"to say that [the] decision is supported by substantial evidence
pproaches an abdication of the court's duty to scrutinize the
record as a whole to determine whether the conclusions reached are
rational."

Dobrowo1sky v. Califano,

22

606 F.2d 403,

406

(3d Cir.

1979) .

In Cotter,

t

Circuit Court clarified that the ALJ must

not only state the evidence considered which supports the result
ut also indicate what evidence was rejected: "Since it is apparent
that the ALJ cannot reject evidence

no reason or t

reason, an explanation from the ALJ of t
evi

wrong

reason why p

tive

has been rejected is required so that a reviewing court

can determine whether the reasons for rejection were
Cot

642 F.2d at 706-07.

oper."

However, the ALJ need not undertake an

tive discussion of all the

e. g.,

, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000).

v.

"There is no requirement

that the ALJ discuss in its opinion every tidbit of evidence
incl

d in the record."

Cir. 2004).
is

Hur v. Barnhart,

94 F. App'x 130, 133 (3d

"[W]here [a reviewing court] can determine that there

stantial evidence supporting the Commissioner's decision,
the Cotter doctrine

Commissioner of So

2004)

s not implicated."

al Security,

Hernandez v.

89 Fed. Appx. 771, 774

(3d Cir.

(not precedential) .
A reviewing court may not set aside

decision if it is s

Commissioner's final

substantial ev

, even if t

court would have reached different factual conclusions.

Hartranft,

181 F.3d at 360 (citing Monsour Medical Center v. Heckler,
1185, 1190-91 (3d Cir. 1986); 42 U.S.C.

§

405(g)

806 F.2d

("[t]he f

s

of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported
y substantial evidence, shall be conclusive

23

. ") .

"However,

even if the Secretary's factual fi
substantial evidence,

[a court] may review whether the Secretary,

in making his findings,
facts presented."
Cir. 1983)

s are supported by

ied the correct legal st

Fri

v. Sch

(internal quotation

721 F.2d 445, 447

ker,

tted).

rds to the
(3d

Where the ALJ's decision

is explained in sufficient detail to allow meaningful judicial
review

decision is supported by substantial evidence, a

claimed error may be deemed harmless.
Commissioner of Social Se

2004)

(not precedential)

112 (3d Cir. 2000)

See,

e.g., Albury v.

ty, 116 F. App'x 328, 330

(citing Burnett v.

(" [0] ur

(3d Cir.

ssioner, 220 F.3d

ry concern has always been the

ability to conduct meaningful judicial review.").

An ALJ's

decision can only be reviewed by a court based on the evi

that

was before the ALJ at the time he or she made his or her decision.
Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589, 593 (3d Cir. 2001).
IV. Discussion
Genera~

Considerations

At the outset of our review of whether the ALJ has met the
substantial evi

standard regarding the matters at issue

re,

we note the Third Circuit has repeatedly emphasized the special
nature of proceedings for disability benefits.
606 F.2d at 406.

See Dobrowolsky,

Social Security proceedings are not strictly

adversarial, but rather the So

al Security Administration provides
his claim.

an applicant with assistance to

24

Id.

"These

roceedings are extremely important to the claimants, who are in
real need in most instances and who claim not charity but that
hich is rightfully due as provided for in Chapter 7, Subchapter
II, of the Social Security Act."
Education and Wel

Hess v. Secretary of Health,

re, 497 F. 2d 837, 840 (3d Cir. 1974).

the agency must take extra care in deve

an administrative

record and in explicitly weighing all evi
F.2d at 406.

Fur

r, the court in Dobrowol

As such,

Dobrowolsky,

606

noted "the cases

demonstrate that, consistent with the legislative purpose, courts
have mandated that leniency be shown in establ shing the claimant's
disability, and that the Secretary's respons
strictly construed."

lity to rebut it be

Id.

P2ainti££'s A21eged Errors

As set out above, Plaintiff argues that the decision of the
Social Security Administration is error because the ALJ did not
give appropriate wei

to Plaintiff's subjective complaints of

testicular pain related to varicoceles and the ALJ's RFC and step
five determination were

lawed in that they did not ta

testicular pain into account.
1.

the

(Doc. 18 at 2-15.)

Plaintiff's Credibility

Plaintiff first asserts that the ALJ erred in her evaluation
of his testicular pain
roperly weigh his s
13.)

rom varicoceles because s
ective complaints of pain.

We disagree.

25

did not
(Doc. 18 at 2­

The Third Circuit Court of

Is has stated that "[w]e

'ordinarily defer to an ALJ's credibility

ermination

she has the opportunity at a hearing to assess a w
demeanor.'11

cause he
ness's

Coleman v. Commissioner of Social Security,

440 F.

I

App'x 252, 253 (3d Cir. 2012)
rnhart, 326 F.3d 376, 380

(not precedential)

(3d Cir. 2003)).

"C

(quoting Reefer v.
lity

determinations are the province of the ALJ and should only
disturbed on review if not supported by s

antial evidence."

v. Apfel, Civ. A. No. 00-1309, 2001 WL 793305, at *3

Pa. July II, 2001)

(c

ing Van Horn v. Schwi

(E.D.

717 F.2d 871, 873

(3dCir. 1983)).
Social Security Rul

96-7p

evaluation of a cla

regarding

des the following gu
's statements about his or

her symptoms:
In general, the extent to which an
individual's statements about symptoms can be
relied
as probative evidence in
determining whether the individual is
disabled depends on the credibility of the
statements.
In basic terms, the credibility
of an individual's statements about pain or
other symptoms and their functional ef
s
is the
to which the statements can be
beli
and accepted as true.
When
evaluating the
ility of an individual's
statements, the
udicator must consider the
entire case record and give specific reasons
for the wei
given to the individual's
statements.
SSR 96-7p.

"One strong

tion of the credibility of an

individual's statements is their consistency, both internally and

26

with other information in the case record.
Social Securi
which a cla

SSR 96-7p.

Regulations provide a framework under

's subjective complaints are to be considered.

C.F.R. § 404.1529.

20

rst, symptoms such as pain, shortness of

breath, and fat
abil

u

,s

will only be considered to affect a cla

y to perform work activities if such symptoms result from an

underl

ical or mental impairment that has been demonstrated

to exist by medical signs or laboratory findings.
404.1529(b).

20 C.F.R. §

Once a medically determinable impairment which

results in such symptoms is found to exist, the Commissioner must
evaluate the intensity and persistence of such symptoms to
determine their

ct on the claimant's ability to work.

Id.

In

so doing, the medical evidence of record is considered along with
the claimant's statements.
The regulations
relevant to s
daily living;

Id.

de that factors which will be considered

oms such as pain are the following: activities of
location, duration, frequency and intensity of

the pain or other symptoms; precipitating and
the t

ing factors;

, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medications

taken to al
edicat

ate symptoms; treatment received other than
to relieve pain or other symptoms; other

easures used for pain/symptom relief; and other factors concerning
functional limitations and restrictions due to
symptoms.

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) (3) (i-vii),

27

n or other
416.929(c) (3) (i­

vii)
The Third Circuit has explained:
An ALJ must give serious consideration
to a claimant's subjective complaints of
pain, even where those complaints are not
supported by objective evidence.
Ferguson v.
Schweiker, 765 F.2d 31, 37 (3d Cir. 1985).
"While there must be objective evidence of
some condition that could reasonably produce
pain, there need not be objective evidence of
the pain itself." Green [v. Schweiker, 749
F . 2 d 10 6 6 , 107 1 ( 3 d Ci r. 1 98 4 ) J.
Wh ere
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 contradictory
medical evidence.
Carter [v. Railroad
Retirement Ed., 834 F.2d 62, 65 (3d Cir.
1987)J; Ferguson, 765 F.2d at 37.
ason v.

Shalala,

994 F.2d 1058, 1067-68 (3d Cir. 1993).

Here there is objective evidence of a condition that could
reasonably produce Plaintiff's testicular pain--the varicoceles
have been diagnosed based on objective testing and Plaintiff has
treated regularly for the condition.

Thus, this is a case where

Plaintiff's complaints of pain should have been given great weight
and could only be disregarded if there was contradictory medical
evidence.

Id.

Plaintiff asserts that the only evidence in this category is a
notation that Plaintiff experienced a 70% improvement in his
testicular pain with medication, adding that "a single note that
someone has improved 70% does not mean that their pain is fully
controlled but, rather,

just the opposite."

28

(Doc.

18 at 8.)

This

otation was made when Plaintiff saw Dr. S
2012.

(R.

on November 26,

905.)

Defendant points to this evidence as well as the following:

1)

activities of daily living recorded in the consultative examination
of Sue Labar Yohey, M.Ed., dated March 9, 2012, to whom Plaintiff
was referred for psychological evaluation (R. 742 51); 2) a
February 24, 2012, report from consultative examiner Maliyakkal
John, M.D.

(R. 732); and 3) March 2013 treatment notes indicating

Plaintiff's gait was
extremities wit

and he was able to move all of his
difficulty (R. 925).

(Doc. 19 at 15 16.)

Dr. Yohey's findings regarding activities of daily living
would not be consi
complaints of pain.
treatment notes,

medical evidence cont

ing Plaintiff's

However, Dr. Simmons November 26, 2012,
rtions of Dr. John's assessment, and March 6,

2013, notes from the physical examination conducted by CRNP Thea
Niedzwiedz in Geisi
fall into the

r's Sleep Medicine

entially

of contradictory medical

problem is that the only

nce.

cal evidence referenced

t

The

ALJ in

direct correlation to Plaintiff's groin pain is that it was
controlled by the use of Gabapentin.

(R.

87.)

While it may be

that evidence arguably contradicting Plaintiff's allegat ons of
constant severe pain (see R. 112) may be found in physical
examination notes and Plaintiff's reporting at office visits,
neither Defendant nor the Court can do what the ALJ should

29

done.

It is the ALJ's responsibil

for her de

y to explicitly

de reasons

sion and the analysis later provided by Defendant

cannot make up for the analysis lacking in the ALJ's decision.
Fargnoli v. Massanari,

247 F.3d 34,

42

(3d

r. 2001)i Dobrowol

606 F.2d at 406-07.
The question then is whether the ALJ's Gabapentin reference is
sufficient to undermine the we
attributed to Plaintiff's comp
at 1067-68.

which
ints of pain.2

otherwise be
See Mason,

994 F.2d

We find the ALJ's review of the record problematic in

that general citation to multiple page exhibits does not facilitate
a review of the ALJ's claimed support for the conclusion that
Plaintiff's pain is controlled by Gabapentin.
Exhibits 20F, 22F, 23F and 24F).J
review of the one hundred si

(See R. 87

(citing

Of further concern is that

seven pages contained in the four

cited exhibits confirms Plaintiff's contention that the only direct
support for

ALJ's conclusion is found in Dr. Siwmons' office

visit notes of November 26, 2012.

(Doc. 18 at 8 (citing R.

905).)

Despite these concerns, we conclude Dr. Simmons' notation is

2
We agree with Plaintiff that Dr. Simmons notation that
Plaintiff's pain was 70% controlled does not mean the pain was
fully controlled.
(Doc. 18 at 8.)
However, the ALJ never found
that Plaintiff's pain was fully controlled, i.e., alleviated, with
the use of
ntin.
(R. 87.)
We reject Plaintiff's assertion
that "[t]
conclusion that a reader should draw, from a the [sic]
LJ's statement that the plaintiff's testicular pain was
'controlled' by Gabapentin, is that it was fully controlled, as the
LJ
not modi
that finding in any way."
(Doc. 22 at 5.)
As
discussed in the text, the ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff's allegations
of pain in her analysis.

30

significant

sufficiently direct to be considered evi

contradictory to Plaintiff's subject
f

cts of his pain.

Mason,

reporting of the extent and

994 F.2d at 1067-68.

Furthermore,

other indirect evidence within the exhibits cited by the ALJ
supports the ALJ's Gabapentin assertion.

Specifically, notes from

Plaintiff's January 10, 2013, office visit to Dr. Hottenstein
support the inference that Plaintiff's testicular pain was
controlled
time

(R.

Gabapentin: Plaintiff was taking Gabapentin at the

914); he reported that he was "feeling ok overall"

(R.

913); physical examination showed that generally Plaintiff was
alert and in no distress (R.
the Active P

915); and other than being listed in

lem List, no other reference was made to Plaintiff's

varicoceles at this visit -t

bilat

abetes, eczema, dysl

Plaintiff's

i

Assessment/Plan addressed
a, and the need for

pneumonia and flu vaccines and Plaintiff was directed to return in
three months (R.

915).

(Id. )

With this

countering

Plaintiff's assertions of constant pain and consistent severity, we
conclude ALJ Torres' credibility determination is due the deference
ordinari

assigned.

See Coleman,

440 F.

We are not persuaded otherwise by Pla
the ALJ fail

'x at 253.
iff's arguments that

to discuss February 19, 2013, notes from a

sychiatric medication check where the Axis I I I diagnosis is
"chronic pain issues" and the Plan includes increasing Plaintiff's
Gabapentin dosage, and the ALJ also failed to discuss Plaintiff's

31

test

about a dosage increase.

775) . )

(Doc. 18 at 11 (citing R. 120,

Importantly, the ALJ acknowledges that "the records do

confirm pain or discomfort related to veins in t
88. )

scrotum."

(R.

?hus, her failure to discuss specific evidence--evidence

which does not provide specific medical support of debilitating
pain--is not error.
In fur
Plaintiff

r support of the ALJ's alleged credibil
s to

fact that the ALJ gave little weight to Dr.

John's consultative examination report.
ewed Dr. John's

yerror,

(Doc. 18 at 12.)

as follows:

Dr. John completed a medical source
statement in which he opined that the
cIa
could lift and carry 25 pounds
f l y , 50 pounds occasionally.
He
could stand/walk for 1 to 2 hours in an 8­
hour day and sit for less than 6 hours in an
8-hour
No limitations were noted on
pushing/pulling and the claimant could
occasionally
rform postural maneuvers such
as balancing, stooping, crouching and
crawling (Exibit 14F).
As for the
nion evidence, limited
we
is given to [sic]
inion of Dr. John
in Exhibit 14F that the claimant could not
work for 8 hours, as this is not supported
by the examination which revealed normal
motor and sensory examination as well as no
decreased range of motion. Additionally,
Dr. John is not a treating physician of the
claimant and was relying solely and
exclusively on one observation made on the
day of the consultative examination and not
upon objective long term observations and
experiences with the claimant.
(R. 8788.)

32

he ALJ

Plaintiff acknowledges that Dr. John did not fully articulate
the reasons for his conclusions regarding sitting and standing, but
he maintains that range of motion was not the issue.
12. )

(Doc. 18 at

Plaintiff further avers, that "[e]ven if the ALJ could

discount the consultative examination report of Dr. John,

she

certainly could not claim that it was evidence that would negate
the subjective complaints of pain."

(Doc. 18 at 13.)

Even if we were to agree with Plaintiff's assertion that
range of motion was not the issue (Doc. 18 at 12), this was not the
only basis on which the ALJ gave little weight to Dr. John's
opinion--the ALJ noted that Dr. John was not a treating physician
and relied solely on one observation made on the day of the
evaluation.

(R. 88.)

The ALJ's weighing of the relationship

between Plaintiff and Dr. John is appropriate pursuant to 20 C.F.R.
§

404.1527 (c) .

Furthermore, Dr. John's evaluation was primarily a

form report and the Third Circuit Court has characterized a form
report,

"in which the physician's only obligation was to fill in

the blanks, as 'weak evidence at best,'" Drejka v. Commissioner of
Social Security,

61 F. App'x 778, 782

(3d Cir. 2003)

(not

precedential)

(quoting Mason v. Shalala,

994 F.2d 1058, 1065 (3d

Cir.1993)).

Our Circuit Court of Appeals has also made it clear

that an ALJ is free to accept some medical evidence and reject
other evidence, "provided that [s]he provides a reason for
discrediting the rejected evidence."

33

Zirnsak v. Colvin,

777 F.3d

607,

614

(3d Cir. 2014)

(citations omitted).

Regarding Plaintiff's assertion that the ALJ could not cIa
that Dr. John's report was evidence that would negate the
subjective complaints of pain (Doc. 18 at 13), the ALJ does not
ake any such cIa

However, this is a conclusion without

consequence because, as

scussed above, we have found that the ALJ

identi ied other

which negates Plaintiff's

aints of pain.

jective

We further note that although Dr. John's

recording that Plaintiff had diffuse tenderness of his testicles on
examination does not negate Plaintiff's subjective

aints of

pain, the statement does not support Plaintiff's subjective
complaints

-~diffusen

goes to the area af

cted by the pain and

"tenderness" is not synonymous with severe pain.
Because PIa
credibil

2.

iff has not shown that the ALJ erred in her

determination, this claimed error is not cause for

RFC and Step Five Determination

PIa

iff's second claimed error is that the ALJ's RFC and

step five determination did not take Plaintiff's testicular pain
into account.

(Doc. 18 at 13.)

We disagree.

cifically, Plaintiff asserts that "[t]he ALJ states that
she has determined that the plaintif

can perform less than a full

range of sedentary work but there is no indication that she has
taken into account the constant testicular pain that the

34

la

iff's medical records show exists."

The first problem with

( Doc. 18 at 14.)

is assertion is that the medical records

do not show that Plaintiff suffered from constant testicular pain.
The medical records show that very
constant testicular

Plaintiff complained of

0

This was

ective reporti

s to no medical records which object

o

to

in great pain.

ly observe/assess him

As noted in the previous section of this

Memorandum, at some medical visits, t
not

-Plaintiff

lateral varicoceles was

scussed or noted beyond being identified in Plaintiff's

problem list.

Furthermore, Plaintiff's self-reporting on occasion

can be construed to undermine his al

ions of constant severe

n: at his June 21, 2012, visit to Dr. Hottenstein, the doctor
noted that Plaintiff
"see

been going to the free clinic and was

ng permanent disability due to anxiety/depression" and

Plaintiff reported he had "recurrent scrotal varices, pain
standing," (R. 810

a

sis added)); Plaintiff's statement to Dr.

John on February 12, 2012, that he gets excruciating pain a
t

a day (R. 736); and Plaintiff's report to Dr. Hottenstein on

January 10, 2013,

he was "feeling ok overall" (R.

913).

The second problem with Plaintiff's assertion is that the ALJ
dete

ned Plaintiff to be less than fully credible regarding his

complaints of testicular
dete

in.

nation was appropriate.

As set out above, we found that the
In the section of the ALJ Decision

explaining the basis for the RFC, the summary states that "[t]he

35

records do confirm pain or discomfort related to veins in the
scrotum but the find ings support an ability to perform sedentary
work. "

(R .

88 . )

This statement and the preceding discussion show

that the ALJ did not fail to take Plaintiff ' s testicular pain into
account but rather took it int o account and concluded Plaintiff was
capab l e of perform i ng sedentary work as described .

Contrary to

Plaintiff's assertion that the ALJ ' s RFC determi nation had to be
based on the conc lusion that Pl aintiff h ad n o pain (Doc . 1 8 a t
15 ; Doc . 22 a t

14­

9-1 0) , there is no inn ate contradiction between a

fi ndin g that an individua l is capab l e of doing sedentary work while
suffering with some pain .

v. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above , Plainti ff ' s appea l of the
cting Commiss i oner 's denial of benefits

(Doc . 1) is denied .

An

appropriate Order is filed simultaneously with this Memora ndu m.

Judge
DAT ED:

36