OTT v. ASTRUE

Filing 23

ORDER denying 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 20 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Alan N. Bloch on 2/29/2012. (kmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAWRENCE A. OTT,

Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action No. 10-191-J

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

o

R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of February, 2012, upon consideration
of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court, upon
review of 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

., and denying

plaintiff's claim for supplemental security income benefits under
Subchapter XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1381, et seq.,
finds that the Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial
evidence and, accordingly, affirms.

See 42 U.S.C. §405(g); Jesurum

v. Secretary of U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 48 F.3d
114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995); Williams v. Sullivan, 970 F.2d 1178, 1182
(3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied sub nom., 507 U.S. 924 (1993)
Bowen, 845 F.2d 1211,1213 (3d Cir. 1988).
1

i

Brown v.

See also-=-=-_-"--_--'-_ __

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/ merely because
it would have decided the claim differently)

.::...;;::;..::...;;::;.---.

Cotter v. Harris,

642 F.2d 700/ 705 (3d Cir. 1981)).1

Although not raised by the parties/ the Court notes that the
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ/I) did not make express findings
regarding Plaintiff's ability to stoop. He appears to have adopted
the findings of consultative examiner Stanley Kotala, M.D./ that
Plaintiff is not able to bend or crouch. Dr. Kotala, however/ also
found that Plaintiff could never stoop. The ALJ neither adopted this
limitation nor explained why he did not. Pursuant to Social Security
Ruling (SSR) 96-9p, the frequency with which Plaintiff can stoop could
have impacted the amount of erosion of the relevant occupational basel
which included a limitation to sedentary work. Specifically/ SSR
96-9p provides that "[a]n ability to stoop occasionallYi i.e./ from
very little up to one-third of the timet is required in most unskilled
sedentary occupations./I It further provides that "[a] cOlZ!P.lete
inability to stoop would significantly erode the unskilled sedentary
occupational base and a finding that the individual is disabled would
usuallyapply./I SSR 96-9p/ 1996 WL 374185 (S.S.A.)/ at *8 (emphasis
in original) .
However/ although he did not expressly discuss Plaintiff/s
ability or inability to stoop/ the ALJ did find that Plaintiff was
not able to bend. Stooping is a form of bending, i.e., bending the
body downward and forward by bending the spine at the waist, so the
inability to bend would also preclude stooping. See SSR 85 15/ 1985
WL 56857 (S.S.A.)/ at *6i Chester v. Callahan, 193 F.3d 10, 13 n.1
(1 st Cir. 1999) ("The ability to stoop incorporates the ability to
bend.") i Harrington v. Astrue/ 2008 WL 819035/ at *4 (M.D.N.C. Mar.
21/ 2008). Therefore/ the ALJ/ s finding that Plaintiff could not bend
necessarily included the finding that he could not stoop. Moreover/
the vocational expert ("VE/I) 's testimony that the inability to bend
did not erode the ability to perform the jobs of plastic design applier
and ink printer, therefore, would also necessarily indicate that the
inability to stoop would likewise cause no such erosion, since the
hypothetical person considered by the VE who could not bend also could

2

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment (document No. 18) is DENIED and defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment (document No. 20) is GRANTED.

N. Bloch
s
United States District Judge
ecf:

Counsel of record

not stoop. In other words, stooping is merely a part of the broader
category of bending so if an inability to bend did not erode the
occupational base, an inability to stoop would not either.
Accordingly, the failure of the ALJ to expressly discuss stooping does
not require a remand. See Harrington l 2008 WL 819035, at *4.
3
I