GROVE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Filing
16
OPINION and ORDER denying 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 7/31/17. (slh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID MICHAEL GROVE,
Plaintiff,
-vsNANCY A. BERRYHILL,1
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 16-1036
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge
OPINION
Pending before the court are Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 11 and
14). Both parties have filed Briefs in Support of their Motions. (ECF Nos. 12 and 15). After
careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, and based on my Opinion set forth
below, I am denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 11) and granting
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 14).
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security (ACommissioner@) denying his application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”)
pursuant to the Social Security Act (AAct@). Plaintiff filed his application alleging he had been
disabled since November 19, 2012. (ECF No. 9-5, p. 2). Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”),
William J. Bezego, held a hearing on December 11, 2014. (ECF No. 9-2, pp. 24-57). On
January 13, 2015, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Act. (ECF No. 9-2,
pp. 10-20).
After exhausting all administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed the instant action with this
court. The parties have filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 11 and 14).
The issues are now ripe for review.
1
Nancy A. Berryhill became acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017, replacing
Carolyn W. Colvin.
II.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
A.
Standard of Review
The standard of review in social security cases is whether substantial evidence exists in
the record to support the Commissioner=s decision. Allen v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir.
1989). Substantial evidence has been defined as Amore than a mere scintilla. It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.@ Ventura v. Shalala, 55
F.3d 900, 901 (3d Cir. 1995), quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).
Additionally, the Commissioner=s findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are
conclusive. 42 U.S.C. '405(g); Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 406 (3d Cir. 1979). A
district court cannot conduct a de novo review of the Commissioner=s decision or re-weigh the
evidence of record. Palmer v. Apfel, 995 F.Supp. 549, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Where the ALJ's
findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, a court is bound by those findings, even if
the court would have decided the factual inquiry differently. Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360
(3d Cir. 1999). To determine whether a finding is supported by substantial evidence, however,
the district court must review the record as a whole. See, 5 U.S.C. '706.
To be eligible for social security benefits, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he cannot
engage in substantial gainful activity because of a medically determinable physical or mental
impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. '423(d)(1)(A); Brewster v. Heckler,
786 F.2d 581, 583 (3d Cir. 1986).
The Commissioner has provided the ALJ with a five-step sequential analysis to use
when evaluating the disabled status of each claimant. 20 C.F.R. '404.1520(a). The ALJ must
determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not,
whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) if the claimant has a severe impairment,
whether it meets or equals the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P., appx. 1; (4) if the
impairment does not satisfy one of the impairment listings, whether the claimant=s impairments
2
prevent him from performing his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is incapable of
performing his past relevant work, whether he can perform any other work which exists in the
national economy, in light of his age, education, work experience and residual functional
capacity. 20 C.F.R. '404.1520. The claimant carries the initial burden of demonstrating by
medical evidence that he is unable to return to his previous employment (steps 1-4).
Dobrowolsky, 606 F.2d at 406. Once the claimant meets this burden, the burden of proof shifts
to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can engage in alternative substantial gainful
activity (step 5). Id.
A district court, after reviewing the entire record may affirm, modify, or reverse the
decision with or without remand to the Commissioner for rehearing. Podedworny v. Harris, 745
F.2d 210, 221 (3d Cir. 1984).
B.
Subjective Complaints of Pain
Plaintiff’s only argument is that the ALJ erred in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective
complaints of pain. (ECF No. 12, pp. 7-10).
In evaluating whether a plaintiff’s statements are
credible, the ALJ will consider evidence from treating, examining and consulting physicians,
observations from agency employees, and other factors such as the claimant's daily activities,
descriptions of the pain, precipitating and aggravating factors, type, dosage, effectiveness, and
side effects of medications, treatment other than medication, and other measures used to
relieve the pain. 20 C.F.R. '§416.929(c), 404.1529(c); SSR 96-7p. The ALJ will also look at
inconsistencies between the claimant's statements and the evidence presented. Id. I must defer
to the ALJ=s credibility determinations, unless they are not supported by substantial evidence.
Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 972 (3d Cir. 1981); Baerga v. Richardson, 500 F.2d 309, 312
(3d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 931 (1975).
In this case, Plaintiff specifically asserts that the ALJ statement that the Plaintiff’s
“allegations regarding the severity of his pain are without substantial support from the objective
3
medical evidence of record” is a “bold statement with nothing to back it up and no explanation
for his position.” (ECF No. 12, pp. 7-8). After a review of the record, I disagree.
In this case, the ALJ set forth the testimony of Plaintiff, including his statements of pain.
(ECF No. 9-2, p. 15). After considering the same, the ALJ stated that while he finds Plaintiff’s
impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, Plaintiff’s
“statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not
entirely credible for the reasons explained in this decision” and are based on the “objective
medical evidence; the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency and intensity
of the claimant’s symptoms; factors that may have precipitated and aggravated his symptoms;
the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medications; his treatment;
and other appropriate factors. (SSR 96-7p).” (ECF No. 9-2, pp. 15-16)(emphasis added). The
ALJ then detailed Plaintiff’s records and the factors set forth above. Id. at pp. 16-17.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned finds that the claimant’s allegations
regarding the severity of his pain are without substantial support from the
objective medical evidence of record as set forth above. More specifically, the
undersigned notes that the record fails to reflect a continuous period of at least
12 months prior to the claimant’s date last insured he could not have performed
the limited standing and walking requirements in the residual functional capacity
set forth above. In this regard, the undersigned cites the claimant’s testimony
that he was able to ambulate without an assistance device up until three months
before his August 2013 surgery. In addition, he has acknowledged that the
surgery provided him 75% improvement. The undersigned also notes that
through the majority of the relevant timeframe, the claimant did not require
anything stronger than over the counter medication to make his pain tolerable.
(ECF No. 9-2, pp. 17-18). Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s position, the ALJ did not make a bold
statement without explanation. Rather, the ALJ specifically addressed Plaintiff’s complaints of
pain. (ECF No. 9-2, pp. 15-18).
After a review of the record, I find that the ALJ followed the proper method to determine
the Plaintiff’s credibility. As laid out in his decision, the ALJ considered the factors set forth
above. (ECF No. 9-2, pp. 15-18). Thus, I find the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff's credibility as
required by 20 C.F.R. '416.929 and SSR 96-7p and, based on the entire record as a whole, I
4
find there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ=s decision to find Plaintiff not entirely
credible. (ECF No. 9-2, pp. 10-20). Therefore, I find no error in this regard.2
An appropriate order shall follow.
2
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ made only “one error.” (ECF No. 12, p. 7). To the extent that Plaintiff’s
brief can be construed to allege an additional error, that the ALJ erred by improperly disregarding
vocational expert testimony, I disagree. (ECF No. 12, p. 8). An ALJ is required to accept only that
testimony from the vocational expert which accurately reflects a plaintiff’s impairments. See, Podedworny
v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210 (3d Cir. 1984); Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.2d 1269, 1276 (3d Cir. 1987). Based
on my review of the record, there is substantial evidence that the ALJ’s hypothetical questions accurately
reflected Plaintiff’s impairments. (ECF No. 9-2, pp. 10-20). Consequently, I find no error in this regard.
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID MICHAEL GROVE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
-vsNANCY A. BERRYHILL,3
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 16-1036
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge
ORDER OF COURT
THEREFORE, this 31st day of July, 2017, it is ordered that Plaintiff=s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docket No. 11) is denied and Defendant=s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket No. 14) is granted.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Donetta W. Ambrose
Donetta W. Ambrose
United States Senior District Judge
3
Nancy A. Berryhill became acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017, replacing
Carolyn W. Colvin.
6
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?