NEIGHBORS v. ASTRUE

Filing 12

ORDER denying 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 10 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Alan N. Bloch on 8/19/2014. (js)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HEATHER JEAN NEIGHBORS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

Civil Action No. 13-660

ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2014, upon consideration of the parties= crossmotions 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); Jesurum v. Secretary of U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services, 48 F.3d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995); Williams v. Sullivan,
970 F.2d 1178, 1182 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied sub nom., 507 U.S. 924 (1993); Brown v.
Bowen, 845 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1988). 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

1

would have decided the claim differently) (citing Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 705 (3d Cir.
1981)).1
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. 10) is GRANTED.

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

1

Aside from arguing generally that the ALJ’s decision was inconsistent with the
evidence and testimony, Plaintiff contends that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s
credibility determination. The Court disagrees.
It is well established that "[a]llegations of pain and other subjective symptoms must be
supported by objective medical evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), and an ALJ may reject a
claimant's subjective testimony if []he does not find it credible so long as [the ALJ] explains why
[]he is rejecting the testimony." Hall v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 218 Fed. Appx. 212, 215 (3d Cir.
2007) (citing Schaudeck v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 181 F.3d 429, 433 (3d Cir. 1999)); see also
SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 (S.S.A.).
In finding that Plaintiff's subjective complaints were not entirely credible, the ALJ
considered Plaintiff’s testimony and allegations of disabling pain, but evaluated those complaints
against the objective medical evidence in the record and Plaintiff’s treatment history. See (R.
17-21); see also Hall, 218 Fed. Appx. at 215. The ALJ engaged in a detailed discussion regarding
the host of evidence in the record that contradicted Plaintiff's allegations of disability and noted
that “despite undergoing a litany of objective studies, the etiology of [her] alleged pain was
unknown”. (R. 19). The ALJ further noted that he was giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt by
finding that she was more limited than the ALJ had found in a prior determination, and he more
than adequately explained why the objective medical evidence failed to support Plaintiff’s claims
of disabling pain. After careful review of the record, the Court finds that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s credibility finding as well as his ultimate determination that Plaintiff is not
disabled. Accordingly, the Court affirms.
2