KOLLAR v. ASTRUE
Filing
11
ORDER denying 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 6 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Alan N. Bloch on 1/2/2013. (kmw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WENDI J. KOLLAR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Civil Action No. 11-727
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE ,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
o
R D E R
AND NOW, this 2nd day of January, 2013, 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 seq.,
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)
Bowen, 845 F. 2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1988).
1
i
Brown v.
See also Berry v. Sullivan,
738 F. Supp. 942, 944 (W.D. Pa. 1990)
(if supported by substantial
evidence, the Commissioner's decision must be
firmed, as a federal
court may neither reweigh the evidence, nor reverse, merely because
it would have decided the claim differently)
----"'
Cotter v. Harris,
642 F.2d 700, 705 (3d Cir. 1981)).1
1
As stated above, substantial evidence supports the decision of
the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") that Plaintiff is not disabled
under the Social Security Act (the "Act"). Indeed, the ALJ very
thoroughly explained the rationale for the weight he assigned to the
evidence in the record, and substantial evidence supports his findings.
One point, however, requires further discussion. Plaintiff
argues that the ALJ failed to find that she had additional impairments
that were severe at Step Two of the analysis, specifically, her
osteoarthritis and degenerative back problems. However, she fails to
acknowledge that the Step Two determination as to whether she is
suffering from a severe impairment is a threshold analysis requiring
the showing of only one severe impairment. See Bradley v. Barnhart,
175 Fed. Appx. 87, 90 (7 th Cir. 2006). In other words, as long as a
claim is not denied at Step Two, it is not generally necessary for
the ALJ specifically to have found any additional alleged impairment
to be severe. See Salles v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 229 Fed. Appx.
140, 145 n.2 (3d Cir. 2007) i Lee v. Astrue, 2007 WL 1101281, at *3
n.5 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2007) i Lyons v. Barnhart, 2006 WL 1073076, at
*3 (W. D. Pa. March 27, 2006). Since Plaintiff's claim was not denied
at Step Two, it does not matter whether the ALJ correctly or incorrectly
found Plaintiff's other alleged impairments to be non-severe.
Of course, even if an impairment is non-severe, it may still affect
a claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"). In assessing a
claimant's RFC, the ALJ "must consider limitations and restrictions
imposed by all of an individual's impairments, even those that are
not 'severe. '" S.S.R. 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (S.S.A.), at *5 (July 2,
1996).
See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a) (2), 416.945(a) (2).
"While
a 'not severe' impairment (s) standing alone may not significantly limit
an individual's ability to do basic work activities, it may - when
considered with limitations or restrictions due to other impairments
- be critical to the outcome of a claim." S.S.R. 96-8p at *5.
2
Therefore, 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.6)
is GRANTED.
s/Alan N. Bloch
United States District Judge
ecf:
Counsel of record
Accordingly, merely because the ALJ did not find Plaintiff's
osteoarthritis and degenerative back problems to be severe does not
mean that these conditions could not still have affected Plaintiff's
RFC. However, the ALJ expressly stated that he did, in fact, consider
the impairments he found to be non-severe through the rest of his
decision, including his RFC determination.
(R. 13). Moreover, the
ALJ included numerous restrictions in Plaintiff's RFC based on the
severe impairments that he did find to be present, and Plaintiff does
not suggest what additional limitations should have been included in
the RFC based on her osteoarthritis and degenerative back problems
that were not already included, nor does the record demonstrate any
such additional restrictions. Accordingly, there is no basis for
Plaintiff's argument regarding the ALJ's analysis at Step Two.
3
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?