NAHORY v. ASTRUE
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 16 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. See Memorandum for further details. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 7/30/13. (gpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RENAE NAHORY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 12-932
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
AND NOW, this ~y of July, 2013, 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
Social
Security
("Commissioner" )
denying
plaintiff'S
application for supplemental security income under Title XVI of
the
Social
Security
Act
("Act"),
IT
IS
ORDERED
that
the
Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Document No. 16) be,
and the same hereby is, granted and plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment (Document No. 14) 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 rej ect
or discount
reasons for doing so.
any evidence
if
Plummer v. Apfel,
the ALJ explains
the
186 F.3d 422,
(3d
429
Cir.1999).
Where the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by
substantial
evidence,
findings,
even
differently.
if
it
a
reviewing
would have
Fargnoli v.
court
is
decided
the
Massanari,
bound
by
factual
247 F.3d 34,
38
those
inquiry
(3d Cir.
'll>AO 72
(Rev. 8/82)
2001).
These well-established principles preclude a reversal or
remand of the ALJ' s
substantial
decision here because the record contains
evidence
to
support
the
findings
ALJ's
and
conclusions.
Plaintiff
filed her current application 1 for supplemental
security income on April 24,
2008 1
date
to bipolar disorder
of
March
depression.
11
2008,
due
alleging a disability onset
I
anxiety and
Plaintiff's application was denied initially.
plaintiff's request I
an ALJ held a hearing on July 8 1
2010 1
At
at
which plaintiff, represented by counsell and a vocational expert
appeared and testified.
On July 28 1
2010,
the ALJ issued a
decision finding that plaintiff is not disabled.
On May 8 1 2012 1
the Appeals Council denied review making the ALJ's decision the
final decision of the Commissioner.
Plaintiff was 26 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision
and is classified as a younger person under the regulations.
C. F. R. §416. 963 (e).
20
Plaintiff has an eighth-grade education which
is classified as limited.
20 C.F.R.
§416.963{b)(3).
The ALJ
found that plaintiff has no past relevant work experience and that
she has not engaged in any substantial gainful activity since her
alleged onset date. 2
1
Plaintiff previously had filed two prior applications for
supplemental security benefits. The first was denied initially on July
8, 2002, and plaintiff did not request further review. The second was
denied by ALJ decision dated February 22, 2007.
2
The record indicates that plaintiff worked briefly as an
assembly line worker and as a youth activities director, but she did not
work at any job long enough for it to qualify as substantial gainful
activity or past relevant work.
.A072
(Rev. 8/82)
13
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?