FINKELSTEIN v. COLVIN
ORDER denying 19 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 4/9/18. (slh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMY JO FINKELSTEIN,
-vsNANCY A. BERRYHILL,1
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Civil Action No. 16-1467
AMBROSE, Senior District Judge
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. (ECF No.
19). Plaintiff has filed a Response thereto. (ECF No. 22). “[A] judgment may be altered or
amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following grounds: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available
when the court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error
of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999), citing, North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance
Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir.1995). Defendant is seeking reconsideration based on the need
to correct a clear error of law or fact to prevent manifest injustice. (ECF No. 20, pp. 2-3, n.2).
On December 21, 2017, this court entered an Opinion and Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, denying Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings consistent
Nancy A. Berryhill became acting Commissioner of Social Security on January 23, 2017, replacing
Carolyn W. Colvin.
with the Opinion and Order. (ECF No. 17). Specifically, I remanded this case because I found
that the ALJ failed to “discuss, weigh, mention or even cite to the opinions of the state agency
doctors.” (ECF No. 17, p. 5). While it appeared as though the ALJ may have given great weight
to the opinions of the state agency doctors, the ALJ’s failure to discuss these opinions prohibited
me from conducting a proper and meaningful review because I was unable to tell the basis for
accepting them and if that basis is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Although the ALJ
may choose whom to credit when faced with a conflict, he cannot accept or reject evidence for no
reason or for the wrong reason. Diaz v. Comm’r of Soc. Security, 577 F.3d 500, 505 (3d Cir.
An ALJ is required to discuss and weigh all medical opinion evidence and give specific
reasons for his or her determination. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527; §404.927. A plaintiff is entitled to
know the reasons for an ALJ’s decision to give a medical opinion a specific weight. It is only after
an ALJ justifies his decision for giving an opinion specific weight, that its reasoning can be
evaluated. Contrary to Defendant’s argument otherwise, Plaintiff never conceded that the ALJ
discussed and weighed the state agency opinions or that the ALJ gave specific reasons for doing
so. Since the ALJ in this case failed to provide any analysis as to why he ostensibly gave great
weight to the state agency opinions, I am unable to make a meaningful review as to whether the
very specific RFC is based on substantial evidence.
In its Motion, Defendant first suggests that Plaintiff did not raise this issue in her brief and
therefore cannot serve the basis for remand. (ECF No. 20, p. 1). I disagree. Plaintiff’s first
main argument heading is that “the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff could perform unskilled light jobs
lacks the support of substantial evidence.”
(ECF No. 12, p. 16).
specifically sets forth the statement that the ALJ did not say what weight he gave to the opinion
of the state agency non-examining reviewer, Dr. Fox. Id. at p. 18. Plaintiff then has to speculate
that the ALJ “appears” to have adopted it in its entirety. Id. This was not “overlooked” by this
court. Rather, it was viewed as raising the issue before me. Consequently, I find no merit to
Defendant’s argument that the issue was not raised in Plaintiff’s Brief.
Defendant next argues that the Appeals Council very specifically addressed this issue.
(ECF No. 20, pp. 1-5). Again, I disagree with Defendant. In addressing the issue before the
Appeals Council, the Appeals Council merely stated that it found the state agency opinions
“consistent” with the residual functional capacity found by the ALJ. (ECF No. 9-2, p. 3). The
Appeals Council in no way states what weight the ALJ gave the opinions or the ALJ’s basis for
the same. Simply because the Appeals Council (or Plaintiff for that matter) acknowledges that
the ALJ appears to have given weight to an opinion does not relieve the ALJ of his obligation to
discuss and weigh it.
Along those same lines, just because a residual functional capacity
appears to track an opinion does not relieve an ALJ from his obligation to discuss the basis for
presumably giving it great weight.
The review of an administrative order must be judged only upon those bases set forth and
disclosed in that order. Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 44 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2001). Neither the
ALJ’s decision nor the Appeals Council Action discuss the weight given to the state agency
opinions or the basis for the same. Therefore, I find no merit to this argument either.
Finally, Defendant argues that even if the same is true, there is no harm to Plaintiff. (ECF
No. 20, pp. 2, 5-8). To that end, Defendant suggests that the failure to discuss the weight
assigned to an opinion does not prejudice a plaintiff. (ECF No. 20, p. 5). While I agree that it is
not prejudicial to a plaintiff if an ALJ does not use a specific word when assigning the weight to
an opinion, he must still discuss the opinion and provide the reason for adopting or rejecting it.
Defendant merely assumes that the adoption of the state agency opinions is proper and thus that
there is no resulting harm.
(ECF No. 20, pp. 5-8).
Without a discussion of why the ALJ
presumably gave the opinions great weight, however, there is no way to assess whether the
decision to do so is based on substantial evidence. Moreover, the state agency opinions in this
case cannot be cumulative as there is no other opinion evidence that is similar. The harm in this
case is apparent. If the ALJ does not set forth the basis for apparently adopting opinions, Plaintiff
does not have clear understanding of why one opinion was credited over another. Furthermore,
without the same, this court cannot determine whether an ALJ’s opinion is based on substantial
evidence. Again, simply because the ALJ appears to have given weight to an opinion does not
relieve the ALJ of his obligation to discuss and weigh it in accordance with the regulations.
THEREFORE, this 9th day of April, 2018, after careful consideration of the submissions of
the parties, and based on my Opinion set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment is denied. (ECF No. 19).
BY THE COURT:
s/ Donetta W. Ambrose
Donetta W. Ambrose
United States Senior District Judge
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?