BRIGGS v. ASTRUE

Filing 12

ORDER denying 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 10 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Alan N. Bloch on 1/3/2012. (kmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GALE E. BRIGGS, JR.,

Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action No. 10 102-E

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

o

R D E R

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2012, upon consideration
of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court, upon
review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision, denying
plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits under Subchapter
II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §401, et seq., and denying
plaintiff's claim for supplemental security income benefits under
Subchapter XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1381, et

~.,

finds that the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial
evidence and, accordingly, affirms.

See 42 U.S.C. §405{g)

i

Jesurum

v. Secretary of U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 48 F.3d
114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995) i Williams v. Sullivan, 970 F.2d 1178, 1182
(3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied sub nom., 507 U.S. 924 (1993); Brown v.
Bowen, 845 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1988).

See also Berry v. Sullivan,

738 F. Supp. 942, 944

(w.n.

Pa. 1990)

(if supported by substantial

evidence, the Commissioner's decision must be affirmed, as a federal
court may neither reweigh the evidence, nor reverse, merely because
it would have decided the claim differently) (citing Cotter v. Harris,
642 F. 2d 700, 705 (3d Cir. 1981)).1

Plaintiff's primary argument is that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")
failed properly to consider the effects of his obesity in combination with his other
impairments in determining whether their combined effects met or equaled a listing.
Plaintiff argues that, contrary to Social Security Ruling (\\SSR") 02 1p, 2002 WL
34686281 (S. S .A. ), the ALJ failed to analyze whether "the combined effects of [his]
obesity with his other impairments caused a greater limitation of function than would
otherwise be expected without the obesity.
Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Summary
Judgment (Doc. No.9) at 11.
1/

Pursuant to SSR 02-1p, an ALJ is required to take a claimant's obesity into
account when determining whether he or she is disabled. An ALJ "must meaningfully
consider the effect of a claimant's obesity, individually and in combination with
[his] impairments, on [his] workplace function at step three and at every subsequent
step." Diaz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 577 F.3d 500, 504 (3d Cir. 2009). The United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Diaz, remanded because the ALJ
completely failed to discuss the effects of the claimant's obesity at step three
despite finding that it constituted a severe impairment. See
. at 504. The court
explained that the ALJ should determine "whether, and to what extent, (a claimant' s]
obesity, in combination with [his other impairments], impacted [his] workplace
performance." Id. at 505. It specifically noted, however, that remand might not
have been necessary had there been "any discussion of the combined effect of [the
claimant's] impairments." Id. at 504 (emphasis in original).
In the present case, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered
Plaintiff's obesity in combination with his other impairments at step three of his
analysis. The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the severe impairments of obesity;
related back, knee and ankle disorders; hypertension; and asthma. (R. 15). The
ALJ explicitly discussed obesity and, although he did not expressly cite to SSR 02-1p,
he clearly relied upon the Ruling, as he discussed the criteria set forth in the
Ruling in his discussion as to whether any of Plaintiff's impairments met or equaled
a listing. See
, 577 F. 3d at 504 (stating that the ALJ is not required to "employ
particular 'magic' words" in analyzing the effects of obesity). The ALJ considered
Plaintiff's obesity together with his asthma, hypertension, and related back, knee,
and ankle disorders in reaching his conclusion that their combined effect's did not
satisfy the criteria for a listing. His explanation that Plaintiff was still able
to ambulate effectively necessarily implies that he was considering whether Plaintiff
satisfied the requirements for a musculoskeletal impairment listing. He also
explicitly determined that Plaintiff's obesity did not cause or contribute to any
pulmonary impairment that satisfied a respiratory listing. Furthermore, the ALJ
went on to discuss whether Plaintiff's other impairments satisfied any
musculoskeletal, respiratory, or cardiovascular listings, and provided a clear
rationale for why they did not. (R. 16). At step four of the analysis, the ALJ

Therefore

I

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for

Summary Judgment (document No.8) is DENIED and defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment (document No. 10) is GRANTED.

s/Alan N. Bloch
United States District Judge
ecf:

Counsel of record

considered Plaintiff's obesity in fashioning his residual functional capacity and
provided a detailed analysis of the objective medical evidence of record. (R. 16-18) .
Additionally, the Court notes that the ALJ gave Plaintiff the benefit
of the doubt when he restricted him to sedentary work. Both the state agency
assessment and consultative physician assessment found that Plaintiff was able
to perform light or medium work, respectively. The ALJ afforded these
assessments some weight, to the extent that they were not inconsistent with
the objective medical evidence, but found that they were an overestimation
of Plaintiff's abilities to "perform sustained lifting and carrying in light
of his obesity and the related symptoms of pain and fatigue."
(R. 18).
Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's
obesity in combination with his other impairments to determine that he was
capable of performing sedentary work, and the record as a whole indicates that
the ALJ's determination of non-disability is supported by substantial
evidence.