SWAIM v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Filing 16

ORDER denying 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 13 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Alan N. Bloch on 9/25/2024. (dpo)

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

KAREN J. SWAIM,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 23-1132

ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of September, 2024, upon consideration of the parties’
cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court, after reviewing 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., finds that the
Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and, accordingly, affirms.
See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1153-54 (2019); Jesurum v.
Secretary of U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs, 48 F.3d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing
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,

1

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

Plaintiff argues that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision finding her
not disabled is insufficiently supported because the ALJ erred in her evaluation of the
medical opinion offered by Dr. Donald McFarland. (Doc. No. 9). As explained herein,
any error the ALJ may have made was harmless; accordingly, the Court will affirm the
ALJ’s non-disability determination.
1

In this matter, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to adequately address
supportability and consistency in her finding that Dr. McFarland’s opinion was not
persuasive. (Doc. No. 9 at 5-10). This error was harmful, Plaintiff argues, because the
ALJ likely would have formulated a more restrictive RFC had she found Dr. McFarland’s
opinion to be more persuasive. (Id.). The ALJ analyzed Dr. McFarland’s opinion and
stated the following:
Another provider stated [Plaintiff] was incapable of even “low stress” jobs,
had memory loss and balance issues, could sit for less than 2 hours, could
stand or walk for less than 2 hours, was incapable of employment, and had
attention and concentration interference occasionally (21F). The opinion
is not persuasive, as it is not supported by and is not consistent with the
evidence.
Statements on the ultimate issue are reserved for the
Commissioner. Further, these findings greatly overstate the extent of the
claimant’s limitations, as physical exam show good strength, good gait,
good ability to care for himself, and many other normal findings (2F/7;
5F/20; 6F/4, 49, 127; 7F/28; 18F/26). Therefore, this opinion is not
persuasive.
(R. 42). In this explanation of her persuasiveness determination, the ALJ arguably
conflated supportability and consistency. Supportability is a measure of the relevancy of
“objective medical evidence and supporting explanations presented by a medical source . . .
to support his or her medical opinion(s)[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1). Consistency
measures the agreeableness of medical opinions with “evidence from other medical sources
and nonmedical sources in the claim[.]” Id. § 404.1520c(c). One court has explained the
distinction between supportability and consistency thus: “supportability relates to the extent
to which a medical source has articulated support for the medical source’s own opinion,
while consistency relates to the relationship between a medical source’s opinion and other
evidence within the record.” Cook v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:20-CV-1197, 2021 WL
1565832, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2021). Here, the ALJ’s decision, while mentioning both
consistency and supportability, only cites to evidence relevant to the consistency of Dr.
McFarland’s opinion with Plaintiff’s physical exam findings from other sources. (R. 42).
2

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED.

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

Counsel of record

However, even if this was in error, it does not require remand. Remand is
unnecessary when the Court can determine with confidence that an error did not impact the
outcome of the case. See Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 553 (3d Cir. 2005).
Here, the Court is confident that the outcome of Plaintiff’s case was not impacted by the
ALJ arguably conflating supportability and consistency because Dr. McFarland’s opinion
was unaccompanied by any supporting evidence or explanations. See Pipkin v. Kijakazi,
No. 22-2-E, 2023 WL 411291, at *1 n.2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2023) (finding the ALJ
committed harmless error when conflating supportability and consistency because the
doctor’s opinions were unaccompanied by supporting explanations). As Defendant
points out, Dr. McFarland’s opinion was rendered largely by checkmarks and without any
supporting explanation. (Ex. 21F). Indeed, Dr. McFarland’s opinion contains very few
explanations, such as “memory loss, balance issues,” for his conclusion that Plaintiff was
incapable of even “low stress” work. (Ex. 21F/2). Dr. McFarland also stated that
Plaintiff was “incapable of meaningful activity” as a blanket answer for much of page three
of his opinion. (Ex. 21F/3). Dr. McFarland’s absence of any meaningful explanation
for his opined limitations made it nearly impossible for the ALJ to analyze the
supportability of this opinion. Accordingly, any potential error on this point was
harmless.
The ALJ’s findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed.

3