LITTLE v. ASTRUE
Filing
15
MEMROANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 12 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 8/11/11. (gpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DONALD LITTLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 10 131J
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE ,
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
AND
NOW,
/I ,tez--day
this
of
Augus t ,
2011,
upon
due
consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment
pursuant to plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the
Commissioner
of
Social
("Commissioner" )
Security
denying
plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits and
supplemental
security
income
under
Titles
respectively, of the Social Security Act
II
("Act"),
and
XVI,
IT IS ORDERED
that the Commissioner1s motion for summary judgment (Document No.
12) be, and the same hereby is, granted and plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment
(Document No.
10)
be,
and the same hereby is,
denied.
As the factfinder, an Administrative Law Judge (II ALJII) has an
obligation to weigh all of the facts and evidence of record and
may reject
or discount
reasons for doing so.
Cir. 1999) .
any evidence
ALJ explains
the
186 F.3d 422, 429
(3d
if
Plummer v. Apfel,
the
Where the ALJ1s findings of fact are supported by
~A072
(Rev. 8182)
substantial
evidence,
a
reviewing
court
is
bound
by
those
findings,
even
differently.
2001).
if
it
would have
Fargnoli v.
decided
Massanari,
the
factual
247 F.3d 34,
38
inquiry
(3d Cir.
These well-established principles preclude a reversal or
remand of the ALJ I
substantial
S
decision here because the record contains
evidence
to
support
the
ALJ I s
findings
and
conclusions.
Plaintiff protectively filed his pending applications for
benefits on August 27, 2008, alleging a disability onset date of
July
16,
2008,
due
to
multiple
sclerosis.
Plaintiff's
applications were denied initially.
At plaintiff's request an ALJ
held
2009,
a
hearing
represented
testified.
by
on
November
counsel,
and
3,
at
plaintiff's
which
wife
plaintiff,
appeared
and
On November 9, 2009, the ALJ issued a decision finding
that plaintiff is not disabled.
On March 19, 2010, the Appeals
Council denied review making the ALJ's decision the final decision
of the Commissioner.
Plaintiff was 27 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision
and is classified as a younger person under the regulations.
C. F . R .
§ § 4 04
. 1563 (c)
and
§ 416
. 963 (c) .
He
has
a
high
20
school
education and has past relevant work experience as a cook,
an
assembler and an aide, but he has not engaged in any substantial
gainful activity since his alleged onset date.
After
testimony
reviewing
from
plaintiff's
plaintiff
and
a
medical
records
vocational
and
expert,
hearing
the
ALJ
concluded that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the
Act.
The ALJ found that although the medical evidence establishes
II.AOn
(Rev. 8/82)
- 7
the expense of his treating sources,
taken
l
this argument is not well
as it is clear from the record that the ALJ did not give
controlling,
or even significant,
state agency reviewer.
weight to the opinion of the
Instead, the ALJ explicitly found that the
state agency reviewer's opinion as to plaintiff's limitations was
enti tIed to only "minimal weight" because she was "an unacceptable
medical source and her opinion is not consistent with the findings
of [plaintiff's] treating physicians."
(R.16).
In sum, the ALJ did a thorough job in his decision in setting
forth the relevant medical evidence and explaining why he rej ected
or discounted any evidence.
The court has reviewed the ALJ/s
decision and the record as a whole and is convinced that the ALJ's
evaluation of the medical evidence is supported by substantial
evidence.
Plaintiff's other argument is that the ALJ failed to perform
a
function by-function
assessment
of
plaintiff's
ability
perform work-related activities as required by SSR 96-Sp.
to
The
court has reviewed the ALJ's decision and is satisfied that it
complies
with
the
dictates
of
SSR
96-Sp
in
regard
to
the
assessment of plaintiff's residual functional capacity.
The ALJ first identified plaintiff's functional limitations
and restrictions and then assessed his work-related abilities as
to those functions affected by those restrictions, including those
set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(b)1 (c) and (d) & 416.945(b),
and
(d).
finding
The ALJ then incorporated into his residual capacity
all
restrictions
on
plaintiff's
"""Aon
(Rev. 8/82)
(c)
S
functional
abilities
arising from his impairments that were supported by the record,
including physical,
12).
environmental and mental restrictions.
(R.
The ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment complies
with the requirements of SSR 96-8p and otherwise is supported by
substantial evidence.
After carefully and methodically considering all
medical evidence of record and plaintiff's testimony,
of
the
the ALJ
determined that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of
the Act.
The ALJ's findings and conclusions are supported by
substantial
Accordingly
evidence
I
and
are
not
otherwise
erroneous.
the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed.
~~
Gustave Dlamond
United States District Judge
cc: John D. Gibson Esq.
131 Market Street
Suite 200
Johnstown PA 15901
l
I
Stephanie L. Haines
Assistant U.S. Attorney
200 Penn Traffic Building
319 Washington Street
Johnstown PA 15901
I
~A072
(Rev, 8182)
- 9
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?