BROWN v. ASTRUE
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM 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. See Memorandum Judgment Order for further details. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 9/26/11. (kw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BROWN 1
JAMILLE
Plaintiff
l
v.
Civil Action No. 10-173J
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY
1
1
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
AND
NOW
1
;Jb~y
this
consideration of the parties
l
of
September I
upon
2011 1
due
cross-motions for summary judgment
pursuant to plaintiff/s request for review of the decision of the
Commissioner
of
request
continuing
for
Social
Security
("Commissioner
eligibility
for
ll
)
denying
supplemental
his
security
income ("SSIII) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("Act"),
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 ("ALJ") 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
the ALJ explains
if
Plummer v. Apfel,
the
429
(3d
186 F.3d 422,
Where the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by
'I:l,A072
(Rev. 8182)
substantial
evidence 1
a
reviewing
court
is
bound
by
those
findings,
even
differently.
2001).
if
it
would have
Fargnoli v.
Moreover,
decided
Massanari,
disability
is
not
the
factual
247 F.3d 34,
determined
38
inquiry
(3d Cir.
merely by
the
presence of impairments, but by the effect that those impairments
have upon an individual's ability to perform substantial gainful
activity.
Jones v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d 125, 129 (3d Cir. 1991).
These well-established principles preclude a reversal or remand of
the ALJ's decision here because the record contains substantial
evidence to support his findings and conclusions.
After filing an application on May 5,
2000, plaintiff was
found to be disabled for purposes of SSI for a child due to a
cardiac impairment.
When plaintiff turned 18 years old, his case
was
the
reviewed,
and
Commissioner
issued
a
redetermination
decision on February 21, 2008, finding that his disability ceased
as of February 2008.
The Commissioner denied plaintiff's request
for reconsideration of that determination.
At plaintiff's request, an ALJ held a hearing on January 9,
2009,
at which plaintiff appeared represented by counsel.
On
March 19, 2009, the ALJ issued a decision finding that plaintiff
ceased to be under a disability for purposes of SSI as of February
2008, and he has not become disabled since that date.
The Appeals
Council denied plaintiff's request for review on May 14,
2010,
making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
The instant action followed.
Plaintiff, who is classified as a younger individual under
the
regulations,
20
C.F.R.
§416.963(c),
~A072
(Rev 8/82)
- 2
has
a
high
school
education and no past relevant work experience.
Plaintiff has not
engaged in substantial gainful activity at any time.
After
reviewing
plaintiff's
medical
records
and
hearing
testimony from plaintiff and a vocational expert at the hearing,
the
ALJ
concluded that
meaning of the Act.
plaintiff
is
not
disabled within the
The ALJ found that plaintiff suffers from the
severe impairments of multiple giant coronary aneurysms of the
right and left coronary arteries post Kawasaki's disease,
but
those impairments, alone or in combination, do not meet or equal
the
criteria of
any
of
the
listed
impairments
set
Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, Regulation No.4
forth
in
("Appendix
1") .
The ALJ found that plaintiff retains the residual functional
capacity to perform a range of sedentary work with a number of
other limitations.
stooping,
stairs.
Plaintiff is limited to occasional balancing,
kneeling,
crouching,
crawling and climbing ramps and
In addition, plaintiff must avoid using ladders, ropes
and scaffolds,
extremes.
and he also must avoid hot and cold temperature
Finally,
plaintiff
is
limited to simple,
routine,
repetitive and low stress work that is not performed in a fastpaced production environment (collectively, the "RFC Finding").
Based
concluded
residual
upon
that
testimony
plaintiff's
functional
by
a
age,
vocational
educational
expert,
the
ALJ
background
and
capacity enable him to perform work
that
exists in significant numbers in the national economy, such as a
surveillance system monitor,
addresser,
'I\l,A072
(Rev. 8/82)
- 3
clerical messenger and
charge account clerk.
Accordingly, the ALJ found that plaintiff
is not disabled within the meaning of the Act.
The Act defines "disability" as the inability to engage in
substantial gainful activity by reason of a physical or mental
impairment that can be expected to last for a continuous period of
at
least
twelve
months.
42
U.S.C.
§1382c(a) (3) (A).
The
impairment or impairments must be so severe that the claimant "is
not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering
his age, education and work experience, engage in any other kind
of substantial gainful work which exists in the national
economy . .
. .
II
42 U. S . C. §13 8 2 c (a) (3) (B) .
The Commissioner has promulgated regulations that incorporate
a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether
a claimant is disabled.
The ALJ must determine:
(1) whether the
claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activitYi (2)
if not, whether he has a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether his
impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in Appendix Ii
if
not,
whether
the
claimant's
impairment
performing his past relevant work;
and
(5)
prevents
if so,
him
(4)
from
whether the
claimant can perform any other work that exists in the national
economy I
in light of his age,
residual functional capacity.
education,
work experience and
20 C.F.R. §416.920(a) (4).
If the
claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any step, further
inquiry is unnecessary.
Id.
In this case, plaintiff challenges the ALJ's findings at step
3 of the sequential evaluation process.
'Aon
{Rev. 8/82)
- 4
Specifically, plaintiff
contends the ALJ erred by finding that his coronary impairments do
not meet or equal any listing in section 4.00 relating to the
cardiovascular
system,
particularly
listing
4.10.
The
court
concludes plaintiff's argument is without merit.
At step 3 of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must
determine whether the claimant's impairments meet or equal one of
the
listed
impairments.
Burnett
Security Administration,
v.
Commissioner
220 F.3d 112, 119
of
Social
(3d Cir. 2000).
The
listings describe impairments that prevent an adult, regardless of
age,
education or work experience,
activity.
(3d Cir.
from performing any gainful
20 C.F.R. §416.925(a) i Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 85
2000).
\\ If the impairment is equivalent to a
listed
impairment, then [the claimant] is per se disabled and no further
analysis is necessary."
It
is
the
ALJ's
Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119.
burden
to
identify
the
relevant
listed
impairment in the regulations that compares with the claimant's
impairment.
Id. at 120 n.2.
However, it is the claimant's burden
to present medical findings that show his impairment matches or is
equivalent to a listed impairment.
1178, 1186 (3d Cir. 1992).
Williams v. Sullivan, 970 F.2d
In determining whether the claimant's
impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, the ALJ must set
forth the reasons for his decision.
Burnett, 220 F.2d at 119.
According to plaintiff, the ALJ erred in failing to find that
he meets or equals any listing
in section 4.00,
particularly
listing 4.10 relating to aneurysm of an aorta or major branches.
Contrary
to
plaintiff's
position,
~A072
(Rev, 8/82)
-
5
a
review
of
the
record
establishes that the ALJ employed the appropriate analysis in
arriving at his step 3 finding.
The ALJ analyzed the medical
evidence of record and found that plaintiff suffers from multiple
giant coronary aneurysms of the right and left coronary arteries
post Kawasaki's disease, which are severe impairments.
the
ALJ
determined
considered
in
impairment.
listings
that
plaintiff's
combination,
The ALJ's
under
section
do
not
decision
4.00,
impairments,
meet
or
indicates
but
he
equal
that
found
he
that
However,
even
any
listed
considered
plaintiff's
conditions do not satisfy all the criteria of any listing.
17) .
The
plaintiff's
ALJ
stated
treating
that
objective
cardiologist
and
medical
other
when
evidence
hospital
(R.
from
records
showed plaintiff's impairments do not meet or equal any listing,
thus satisfying his obligation to explain his step 3 finding.
17).
(R.
In addition, the ALJ noted that no physician who reviewed
plaintiff's records concluded that his impairments meet or equal
any listing.
(R.
17).
The ALJ satisfied his burden; however, plaintiff failed to
sustain his burden of showing that his coronary impairments meet,
or equal, listing 4.10 as he claims.
The criteria of that listing
requires an " [a]neurysm of aorta or major branches,
due to any
demonstrated by appropriate medically acceptable
cause
imaging, with dissection not controlled by prescribed treatment
(see 4.00H6).n
According to 4.00H6:
[a]n aneurysm . . . is dissecting when the inner lining
of the artery begins to separate from the arterial wall.
We consider the dissection not controlled when you have
'I1oA072
(Rev, 8/82)
- 6
persistence of chest pain due to progression of the
dissection, an increase in the size of the aneurysm, or
compression of one or more branches of the aorta
supplying the heart, kidneys, brain, or other organs.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he meets the criteria of
listing 4.10.
An electrocardiogram, an echocardiogram, a cardiac
MRI and cardiac enzyme testing performed in February 2008 all were
normal.
(R. 206).
cardiologist
I
Dr.
On numerous occasions, plaintiffls treating
Fareed Ahmadi
described him as
teenager ll who was "asymptomatic. 1I
restricted
plaintiff
from
(R. 223
vigorous
225
1
and
1
a
"thriving
228).
Dr. Ahmad
strenuous
physical
activities, but stated that he could participate in recreational
(R. 214, 223, 225
activities.
1
228, 259, 265).
In addition, Dr.
Ahmad completed a form entitled "Medical Assessment of Physical
Ability to do Work-Related Activities ll indicating that plaintiff
could perform the physical demands of at least light work.
None of Dr.
261-63) .
evidence
of
record,
Ahmad's findings
show
that
(R.
or any other medical
I
plaintiff's
aneurysm condition
involved dissection not controlled by prescribed treatment as
required to meet or equal listing 4.10.
Accordingly, the court
finds that the ALJ's step 3 finding is supported by substantial
evidence.
After
carefully and methodically considering all
medical evidence of record and plaintiff s
I
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
~A072
(Rev 8/82)
-
7
substantial
evidence
and
are
not
otherwise
erroneous.
Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed.
,,;'
~~
.
Gustave D~amond
United States District Judge
cc: J. Kirk Kling, Esq.
630 Pleasant Valley Boulevard
Suite B
Altoona, PA 16602
John J. Valkovci, Jr.
Assistant U.S. Attorney
319 Washington Street
Room 224, Penn Traffic Building
Johnstown, PA 15901
~A072
(Rev. 8/82)
- 8
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?