BOUCH v. ASTRUE
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 8 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 12 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. See Memorandum Judgment Order for further details. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 8/16/11. (kw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHRYL BOUCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 10-970
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
AND
NOW,
this
It~ay
of
August,
2011,
upon
due
consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment
pursuant to plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the
Commissioner
of
applications
for
Social
Security
disability
("Commissioner")
insurance
benefits
denying
her
("DIB")
and
supplemental security income ("SSP') under Title II and Title XVI,
respectively, of the Social Security Act ("Act"),
IT IS ORDERED
that the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Document No.
12) be, and the same hereby is, granted and plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment
(Document No.8)
be,
and the same hereby is,
denied.
As the factfinder, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") has an
obligation to weigh all of the facts and evidence of record and
may reject
or discount
reasons for doing so.
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
cir. 1999) .
any evidence
if
Plummer v. Apfel,
the
ALJ explains
the
429
Od
186 F.3d 422,
Where the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by
substantial
findings,
evidence,
even
differently.
2001).
if
it
a
would
Fargnoli v.
Moreover,
reviewing
have
court
is
bound
decided
the
factual
Massanari,
disability
is
not
247 F.3d 34,
determined
by
38
those
inquiry
(3d Cir.
merely by
the
presence of impairments, but by the effect that those impairments
have upon an individual's ability to perform substantial gainful
activity.
Jones v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 125, 129 (3d Cir. 1991).
These well-established principles preclude a reversal or remand of
the ALJ's decision here because the record contains substantial
evidence to support the ALJ's findings and conclusions.
Plaintiff filed her DIB and SSI applications on June 18,
2007, alleging disability beginning July I, 2006, due to bipolar
disorder.
Plaintiff's applications were denied.
request, an ALJ held a hearing on July 27,
2009,
At plaintiff's
2009.
On August 5,
the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff is not
disabled.
The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for
review on June 12,
2010,
making the ALJ's decision the final
decision of the Commissioner.
The instant action followed.
Plaintiff, who has an eleventh grade education, was 20 years
old at the time of her alleged onset date of disability and is
classified as a younger individual under the regulations.
C.F.R. §§404.1563(c), 416.963(c).
20
Plaintiff has no past relevant
work experience, and she has not engaged in substantial gainful
activity at any time since her alleged onset date.
After
reviewing
plaintiff's
medical
records
and
hearing
testimony from plaintiff and a vocational expert at the hearing,
~A072
(Rev. 8182)
- 2
the ALJ concluded
that
meaning of the Act.
plaintiff
is
not
disabled within the
Although the medical evidence established
that plaintiff suffers from the severe impairments of low back
pain
and
bipolar
combination,
disorder,
those
impairments,
alone
or
in
do not meet or equal the criteria of any of the
listed impairments set forth in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Subpart
P, Regulation No. 4 ("Appendix 1") .
The ALJ found that plaintiff retains the residual functional
capacity to perform sedentary work with a number of additional
limitations.
Plaintiff requires work that permits her to stand
for two minutes every hour,
she is limited to performing only
occasional balancing, bending, stooping and crawling, and she must
avoid exposure to temperature extremes.
In addition, plaintiff is
limited to simple, routine, repetitive tasks that are performed in
a low stress environment and that involve only few changes in the
work processes and no quota-based production standards.
Further,
plaintiff must have only occasional interaction with co-workers
and supervisors and no interaction with the public.
Finally,
plaintiff cannot have access to alcohol or drugs (collectively,
the "RFC Finding").
Based
concluded
residual
upon
that
the
vocational
plaintiff's
functional
age,
expert's
testimony,
educational
the
ALJ
background
and
capacity enable her to perform work
that
exists in significant numbers in the national economy, such as a
surveillance system monitor,
inspector.
Accordingly,
waxer of glass products and dowel
the ALJ found that plaintiff
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
3
is not
disabled within the meaning of the Act.
The Act defines "disability" as the inability to engage in
substantial gainful activity by reason of a physical or mental
impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period
of
at
least
1382c(a) (3) (A).
twelve
months.
42
U.S.C.
§§423 (d) (1) (A),
The impairment or impairments must be so severe
that the claimant "is not only unable to do [her] previous work
but cannot, considering [her] age, education and work experience,
engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists
in
the
national
economy .... "
42
§§423 (d) (2) (A),
U.S.C.
1382c (a) (3) (B) .
The Commissioner has promulgated regulations that incorporate
a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether
a claimant is disabled.
The ALJ must determine:
(1) whether the
claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2)
if not, whether she has a severe impairment;
(3)
if so, whether
her impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in Appendix 1;
(4)
if not, whether the claimant's impairment prevents her from
performing her past relevant work;
and
(5)
if so,
whether the
claimant can perform any other work that exists in the national
economy,
residual
in light of her age,
functional
416.920(a) (4).
education,
20
capacity.
work experience and
C.F.R.
§§404.1520(a) (4),
If the claimant is found disabled or not disabled
at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary.
In this case,
Id.
plaintiff challenges the ALJ's findings at
steps 2 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process.
"'AO 72
(Rev, 8/82)
-
4
Plaintiff
argues at step 2 that
certain
of
her
the ALJ erred in failing
claimed
impairments
are
to find that
"severe."
Further,
plaintiff claims the ALJ's step 5 finding that she retains the
residual functional capacity to perform work that exists in the
national economy is not supported by substantial evidence.
The
court finds that these arguments lack merit.
Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ erred in finding that her
migraine headaches and knee pain are not severe impairments.
The
"severity regulation" applied at step 2 requires that the claimant
have a severe impairment,
or combination of impairments, which
significantly limits her physical or mental ability to perform
basic work activities. l
20 C.F.R.
§§404 .1520 (c), 416.920 (c) .
The Social Security Regulations and Rulings, as well as case law
applying them, discuss the step 2 severity determination in terms
of
what
is
Security,
Chater,
"not
severe.
347 F.3d 541,
Newell
II
546
an
impairment
(3d Cir.
Commissioner of
Social
2003)
{citing Smolen v.
(9th Cir. 1996)).
80 F.3d 1273, 1290
Regulations,
v.
According to the
"is
not
severe
if
it
does
not
significantly limit [the claimant's] physical or mental ability to
do basic work activities."
20 C.F.R. §§404.1521{a), 416.921{a).
IBasic work activities include: (1) physical functions such
as walking,
standing,
sitting,
lifting,
pushing,
pulling,
reaching, carrying, or handlingi (2) capacities for seeing,
hearing
and speaking i
(3) understanding, carrying out, and
remembering simple instructions;
(4)
use of judgment;
(5)
responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers and usual work
situations; and (6) dealing with changes in a routine work
setting. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1521{b) (1)-(6); 416.921{b) (1)-(6).
I
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?