GALLIAHER v. ASTRUE

Filing 10

ORDER denying 5 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 7 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Alan N. Bloch on 3/25/2013. (kmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TWYLA GALLIAHER,

Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action No. 12-689

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

o

R D E R

AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 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

~.,

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 - - - - - 507 U.S. 924 (1993)
sub nom.,
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 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.2d700, 705 (3dCir. 1981)).1

1

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") to rely on the
Medical-Vocational Guidelines, 20 C.F.R Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2 (the
"Grids") in determining that Plaintiff is not disabled is correct and
supported by substantial evidence. The Grids have been promulgated by the
Commissioner of Social Security to facilitate the determination as to whether
a claimant is disabled. The Grids take into consideration the claimant's
exertional limitations, age, education, and work experience and direct a
finding of disabled or not disabled based on the combination of these factors.
Where a claimant has non-exertional limitations, as well as exertional ones,
an ALJ cannot rely solely on the Grids. See Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259
(3d Cir. 2000).
Here, however, the ALJ found no non-exertional limitations; he found
only that Plaintiff was limited to sedentary work as a result of her
impairments, specif ically, fibromyalgia and degenerative disc disease.
(R.
15-20). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in failing to find that she did
have non-exertional limitations, but she fails to indicate what those
limitations are with sufficient specificity, nor does she point to any medical
evidence in the record that would demonstrate any specific non-exertional
limitation. Rather, she seems to rely merely on the fact that she has been
diagnosed with fibromyalgia to establish that she is limited in her ability
to work. However, it is not the fact that Plaintiff has been diagnosed with
fibromyalgia, but the functional limitations caused by her condition that
is relevant. See Orbinv. Barnhart, 38 Fed. Appx. 822 (3dCir. 2002); Craig
v. Astrue, 2013 WL 322516 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2013).
As part of her argument, Plaintiff claims that it was error for the
ALJ to require objective findings of fibromyalgia in determining her
functional limitations, and that he was wrong in not crediting her subjective
complaints of disabling pain. However, as Defendant points out, the ALJ did
not require objective evidence of a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, but rather,
considered all of the evidence, including the medical records, Plaintiff's
treatment history, and her refusal to seek alternative treatments, in
determining what credibility to give to her claims regarding the severity
of her symptoms. It is well-established that an ALJ may not base a finding
of disability solely on a claimant's statements about disabling pain, but
rather, must evaluate "the extent to which [a claimant's] symptoms can

2

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment (document No.5) is DENIED and defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment (document No.7) is GRANTED.

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

Counsel of record

reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence
and other evidence." Prokopick v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 272 Fed. Appx.
196, 199 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)). An ALJ can
ect
a claimant's subjective testimony regarding fibromyalgia related pain as
long as he or she provides sufficient reasons for doing so. See id. (citing
Schaudeck v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 181 F.3d 429, 433 (3d Cir. 1999)
and S.S.R. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 (S.S.A.)). Contrary to Plaintiff's
arguments, the ALJ adequately explained his basis for finding her statements
concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms
to be not fully credible. Accordingly, the ALJ rightly considered the entire
record, including the medical evidence, in determining Plaintiff's
functional limitations. See Orbin, 38 Fed. Appx. at 823; Dixon v.
Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 183 Fed. Appx. 248, 252 (3d
. 2006). The Court
further notes that Plaintiff's argument ignores the fact that she was
diagnosed not only with fibromyalgia, but also degenerative disc disease,
which would necessitate consideration of the objective medical evidence in
any event. See Trauterman v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 296 Fed. Appx. 218,
220-21 (3d Cir. 2008).
As to Plaintiff's contention that the ALJ erred in failing to give
controlling weight to the opinions of her treating physicians, the Court
notes that these physicians merely diagnosed fibromyalgia and degenerative
disc disease. They offered no opinions as to what work limitations, if any,
would be caused by these conditions. The ALJ clearly considered these
records, and substantial evidence supports his treatment of them.

3