SCHAFFER v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Filing 22

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 3/21/19. (ask)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CAROL LOUISE SCHAFFER

)
) No. 17-307

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY
OPINION AND ORDER

SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income. She alleged mental and physical impairments, including those stemming from
fibromyalgia and bipolar disorder. Her application was denied initially, and upon hearing by an
administrative law judge (“ALJ”). The Appeals Council denied her request for review. Before
the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied, and
Defendant’s granted.
OPINION
I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Judicial review of the Commissioner's final decisions on disability claims is provided by

statute. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) 6 and 1383(c)(3) 7. Section 405(g) permits a district court to review
the transcripts and records upon which a determination of the Commissioner is based, and the
court will review the record as a whole. See 5 U.S.C. §706. When reviewing a decision, the
district court's role is limited to determining whether the record contains substantial evidence to
support an ALJ's findings of fact. Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 118 (3d Cir. 2002).

1

Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate" to support a conclusion. Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 900, 901 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971)). Substantial
evidence may be "something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing
two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [the ALJ's decision] from being
supported by substantial evidence." Consolo v. Fed. Maritime Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607, 620, 86 S.
Ct. 1018, 16 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1966). If the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by substantial
evidence, they are conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson, 402 U.S. at 390.
A district court cannot conduct a de novo review of the Commissioner's decision, or reweigh the evidence of record; the court can only judge the propriety of the decision with
reference to the grounds invoked by the Commissioner when the decision was rendered. Palmer
v. Apfel, 995 F.Supp. 549, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1998); S.E.C. v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 - 97,
67 S. Ct. 1575, 91 L. Ed. 1995 (1947).

Otherwise stated, “I may not weigh the evidence or

substitute my own conclusion for that of the ALJ. I must defer to the ALJ's evaluation of
evidence, assessment of the credibility of witnesses, and reconciliation of conflicting expert
opinions. If the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, I am bound by those
findings, even if I would have decided the factual inquiry differently.” Brunson v. Astrue, No.
No. 10-6540, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55457 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2011) (citations omitted).
Nonetheless, I am not required to read the ALJ’s opinion “in a vacuum.” Knox v. Astrue, No.
No. 9-1075, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28978, at *22 (W.D. Pa. May 26, 2010).
II.

THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS

Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in affording great weight to non-examining consultant’s
psychiatric reports, authored in 2014, and affording less weight to the opinion of Dr. John, her

2

treating psychiatrist of three years. In particular, Plaintiff contends that the consultant was
unaware of the subsequent two years of psychiatric records, including Dr. John’s report.
Plaintiff further argues that the ALJ failed to develop the record regarding Plaintiff’s minimal
activities of daily living and her loss of child custody, and did not account for her testimony
regarding use of her hands.
As regards the state agency consultant, the ALJ considered the opinions against the
medical evidence of record, as well as Plaintiff’s activities; he rejected the portion of the
opinions that limited Plaintiff to light work, and restricted her to sedentary work instead. In so
doing, it is apparent that the ALJ reviewed the entirety of the medical record, and evaluated but
did not “rubber stamp” the consultant’s opinion. “[I]t is not improper to rely on a medical
opinion even though years have passed between the date the opinion was issued and the date the
ALJ issued his or her decision.” Burkhart v. Colvin, No. 16-1755, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
208694, at *67 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2018). As for Dr. John’s records submitted subsequent to the
ALJ’s September 23, 2016 decision, Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for failing to
submit the evidence earlier. Moreover, "although evidence considered by the Appeals Council is
part of the administrative record on appeal, it cannot be considered by the District Court in
making its substantial evidence review . . . ." Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589, 593 (3d Cir.
2001).
Finally, as to the remainder of Plaintiff’s contentions, remand is not warranted. “[The]
question is not whether substantial evidence supports Plaintiff’s claims, or whether there is
evidence that is inconsistent with the ALJ’s finding…Substantial evidence could support both
Plaintiff’s claims and the ALJ’s findings….” Weidow v. Colvin, No. 15-765, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 139683, at *57 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 7, 2016). Further, although the Court is sympathetic to

3

Plaintiff’s physical difficulties, it is well settled that the mere existence of a diagnosis does not
equate to disabling limitations. Cornelius v. Berryhill, No. 17-272, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12730
(W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2019). Again, the scope of available review available to this Court is limited; I
cannot reweigh the evidence anew.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied and
Defendant’s granted. An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________
Donetta W. Ambrose
Senior Judge, U.S. District Court
Dated: March 21, 2019

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CAROL LOUISE SCHAFFER

)
) No. 17-307

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY
ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2019, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED, and Defendant’s GRANTED.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________
Donetta W. Ambrose
Senior Judge, U.S. District Court

5