STRUTT v. COLVIN

Filing 20

ORDER denying 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 10/5/17. (ask)

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

WILLIAM J. STRUTT, III,
V.

)
) No. 16-1801
)
)

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY.

SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff received supplemental social security benefits based on his disability as a child.
Pursuant to a Redetermination/Continuing Disability review, Plaintiff’s continued disability
benefits were denied; that decision was upheld. Plaintiff then requested and received a hearing
before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), the ALJ determined that medical improvement
had occurred, and Plaintiff was no longer disabled. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s
request for review. Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For
the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied, and Defendant’s granted.

OPINION
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Judicial review of the Commissioner's final decisions on disability claims is provided by
statute. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) 6 and 1383(c)(3) 7. Section 405(g) permits a district court to review
the transcripts and records upon which a determination of the Commissioner is based, and the
court will review the record as a whole. See 5 U.S.C. §706. When reviewing a decision, the
district court's role is limited to determining whether the record contains substantial evidence to

1

support an ALJ’s findings of fact. Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 118 (3d Cir. 2002).
Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate" to support a conclusion. Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 900, 901 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971)). If the ALJ's
findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, they are conclusive. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
Richardson, 402 U.S. at 390.
A district court cannot conduct a de novo review of the Commissioner's decision, or reweigh the evidence of record; the court can only judge the propriety of the decision with
reference to the grounds invoked by the Commissioner when the decision was rendered. Palmer
v. Apfel, 995 F.Supp. 549, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Otherwise stated, “I may not weigh the
evidence or substitute my own conclusion for that of the ALJ. I must defer to the ALJ's
evaluation of evidence, assessment of the credibility of witnesses, and reconciliation of
conflicting expert opinions. If the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, I
am bound by those findings, even if I would have decided the factual inquiry differently.”
Brunson v. Astrue, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55457 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 14, 2011) (citations omitted).
II. THE PARTIES’ MOTIONS
Plaintiff asserts that six exhibits are not referenced in the ALJ’s opinion, and that the ALJ’s
failure to evaluate those records constitutes error.

Further, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred at

Step 2 of the sequential evaluation, when he failed to consider certain of Plaintiff’s medical
conditions to be severe impairments.
As to the first contention, "[t]here is no requirement that the ALJ discuss in his opinion every
tidbit of evidence included in the record." Hur v. Barnhart, 94 F. App'x 130, 133 (3d Cir. 2004).
“[T]he ALJ's mere failure to cite specific evidence does not establish that the ALJ failed to

2

consider it.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 91 F. App’x 775, 780 (3d Cir. 2004). The ALJ’s decision
indicates that he considered the longitudinal record, including “records from 2012,” and did so in
the context of assessing Plaintiff’s symptoms and conditions. Indeed, the decision itself
evidences no reason to believe that the ALJ did not, in fact, consider the identified records. As
to Plaintiff’s second contention, so long as a claim is not denied at step two, any alleged error at
that step is harmless. Bartmas v. Colvin, No. 15-854, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75410, at **3-4
(W.D. Pa. June 9, 2016). For these reasons, Plaintiff’s contentions must be rejected.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I find no error in the ALJ’s decision. Defendant’s Motion will
be granted, and Plaintiff’s denied. An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Donetta W. Ambrose
_________________________________
Donetta W. Ambrose
Senior Judge, U.S. District Court

Dated: October 5, 2017

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM J. STRUTT, III,
V.

)
) No. 16-1801
)
)

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY.

ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2017, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and Defendant’s
GRANTED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Donetta W. Ambrose
_________________________________
Donetta W. Ambrose
Senior Judge, U.S. District Court

4