LEE 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 4/17/12. (kw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDMUND S. LEE,
Plaintiff,

v.
Civil Action No. 11-140J
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER
AND NOW, this
of the parties'

(7~Of

April, 2012, upon due consideration

cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to

plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying his applications for
disability insurance benefits
income

("SSP')

under Titles

("DIB") and supplemental security
II and XVI,

respectively,

of the

Social Security Act ("Act"), IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's
motion for summary judgment
hereby is,

(Document No. 12) be, and the same

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) .
~A072

(Rev. 8/82)

substantial

any evidence

the ALJ explains

the

186 F.3d 422,

(3d

if

Plummer v. Apfel,

429

Where the ALJ1s findings of fact are supported by
evidence,

a

reviewing

court

is

bound

by

those

findings,

even

differently.
2001).

if

it

would

Fargnoli v.

Moreover,

have

decided

Massanari,

disability

is

not

the

factual

247 F.3d 34,

38

determined merely

inquiry
(3d Cir.
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.
Plaintiff filed his DIB and SSI applications on July 2, 2007,
alleging disability as of June 12, 2004, due to Crohn's Disease,
acid

reflux

and

degenerative

applications were denied.

disc

Plaintiff's

disease.

At plaintiff's request, an ALJ held a

hearing on September 11, 2009.

On January 7, 2010, the ALJ issued

a decision finding that plaintiff is not disabled.

The Appeals

Council denied plaintiff's request for review on April 29, 2011,
making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner.
The instant action followed.
Plaintiff, who has a college education, was 48 years old at
the time of the ALJ's decision and is classified as a younger
individual

under

the

regulations.

20

C.F.R.

§§404.1563(c),

416.963 (c) .

Plaintiff has past relevant work experience as an

admissions

representative,

automobile

salesman,

airline

reservations agent and account executive, but he has not engaged
in substantial gainful activity at any time since his alleged
onset date of disability .
....Aon
(Rev. 8/82)

- 2 ­

After

reviewing

plaintiff's

medical

records

and

hearing

testimony from plaintiff and a vocational expert at the hearing,
the ALJ concluded that he is not disabled within the meaning of
the Act.

Al though the medical evidence established that plaintiff

suffers from the severe impairments of Crohn's Disease,

status

post repair of recurrent inguinal hernia, ulcerative colitis, mild
degenerative

disc

disease

of

the

cervical

spine,

regional

enteritis/reflux, mild to moderate lumbar spine degenerative disc
disease and spondylosis with no sign of canal stenosis,
impairments, alone or in combination,

those

do not meet or equal the

criteria of any of the listed impairments set forth in Appendix 1
of 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, Regulation No.4 ("Appendix 1").
The ALJ found that plaintiff retains the residual functional
capacity

to

limitations.
standing,

perform

light

Plaintiff

is

work

with

number

of

additional

limited to occasional walking and

and he must avoid kneeling,

climbing ladders, rope and scaffolds.
the option to alternate

a

crouching,

crawling and

In addition, he requires

sitting and standing for 1-2 minutes

approximately every 15 minutes

during

the

workday.

Further,

plaintiff is limited to occupations that allow brief, unscheduled
access to a restroom during the workday and that can be performed
wearing an incontinence protection pad

(collectively,

the "RFC

Finding") .
As a result of these limitations,

the ALJ determined that

plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work.
based upon the vocational expert's testimony,
~A072

(Rev. 8/82)

- 3 ­

However,

the ALJ concluded

that plaintiff's age, educational background, work experience and
residual functional capacity enable him to perform other work that
exists in significant numbers in the national economy, such as a
recreation aide, garment sorter or fruit cutter.

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. §§423 (d) (1) (A), 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

national economy ....

gainful

work

which

42 U.S.C. §§423{d) (2) (A),

11

exists

in

the

1382c{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 activi ty i (2)
if not, whether he has a severe impairment; (3) if so, whether his
impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in Appendix 1i (4)
if

not,

whether

the

claimant's

impairment

performing his past relevant work;

and

prevents

(5)

if so,

him

from

whether the

claimant can perform any other work that exists in the national
economy,

in light of his

residual

functional

age,

education,

capacity.

'Aon
(Rev. 8/82)

- 4 ­

20

work experience and

C.F.R.

§§404.1520(a) (4),

416.920{a) (4).

If the claimant is found disabled or not disabled

at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary.
In this case,

Id.

plaintiff challenges the ALJ's findings at

steps 3 and 5 of the sequential evaluation process.
plaintiff

argues

that

the

ALJ

erred

by

concluding

At step 3,
that

his

impairments do not meet or equal any listing in Appendix 1.
Further, plaintiff claims the ALJ's step 5 finding that he retains
the residual functional capacity to perform work that exists in
the national economy is not supported by substantial evidence.
For reasons explained below, these arguments are without merit.
Plaintiff first challenges the ALJ's findings at step 3 of
the

sequential

evaluation process.

At

step

3,

the ALJ must

determine whether the claimant's impairments meet or equal one of
the

listed

Burnett

impairments.

======~-=======~~===,

v.

Commissioner

of

Social

220 F.3d 112, 119 (3d Cir. 2000).

The

listings describe impairments that prevent an adult, regardless of
age,

education or work experience,

from performing any gainful

20 C.F.R. §§404.1525{a), 416.925{a)

activity.

204 F.3d 78, 85 (3d Cir. 2000).

i

Knepp v. Apfel,

"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

burden to

Burnett, 220 F.3d at 119.
identify

the

relevant

listed

impairment in the regulations that compares with the claimant's
impairment.

Id. at 120 n. 2.

However

I

it is the claimant's burden

to present medical findings that show his impairment matches or is
equivalent to a listed impairment.
'b,AO 72

(Rev. 8/82)

- 5 ­

Williams v. Sullivan, 970 F.2d

1178, 1186 (3d Cir. 1992).

In determining whether the claimant's

impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, the ALJ must set

=======,

forth the reasons for his decision.

220 F.2d at 119.

Here, plaintiff argues the ALJ erred in failing to find that
he meets or equals listings under sections 1.00 (musculoskeletal
system disorders),

5.00

(digestive system disorders)

(genitourinary impairments).

and 6.00

Although plaintiff broadly claims

that he meets one or more listings under these sections, he does
not identify any specific listing he allegedly meets, nor does he
cite any medical evidence to demonstrate that he satisfies all the
requirements of a particular listing.
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, 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 Crohn's
Disease,

status

post

repair

of

recurrent

inguinal

hernia,

ulcerative colitis, mild degenerative disc disease of the cervical
spine,

regional enteritis/reflux, mild to moderate lumbar spine

degenerative disc disease and spondylosis with no sign of canal
stenosis, all of which are severe impairments.

However, the ALJ

determined that plaintiff's impairments, even when considered in
combination,

1

do not meet or equal any listed impairment.

The ALJ

l Pl a intiff is incorrect that the ALJ failed to consider his impairments
in combination in determining that he is not disabled. As part of the ALJ's
3 finding, he explained that even when considered in combination,
plaintiff's severe impairments do not meet or equal any listing.
(R. 17).
Further, the ALJ considered all of plaintiff's impairments in combination in
assessing his residual functional capacity, and subsequently finding him not
disabled at step 5 of the sequential evaluation process.
(R. 18-22).
~A072

(Rev 8/82)

- 6 ­

stated that he considered listings under sections 1.00 and 5.00,
but he found that plaintiff's conditions do not satisfy all the
criteria of any listing.

(R.17).

The ALJ then explained why

plaintiff's impairments do not meet or equal any listing.

(R. 17­

18) .

The ALJ satisfied his burden; however, plaintiff failed to
sustain his burden of showing that his impairments meet or equal
a listing.

Other than making a broad, unsubstantiated assertion

that he meets or equals listings under sections 1.00,

5.00 and

6.00, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the evidence of record
supports his argument.

Furthermore,

the court notes that no

medical source of record found that plaintiff's impairments meet
or equal a listing.

For these reasons, the court finds that the

ALJ's step 3 finding is supported by substantial evidence.
The court likewise finds that the ALJ's step 5 finding is
supported by substantial evidence.

At step 5, the Commissioner

must show there are other jobs that exist in significant numbers
in the national economy which the claimant can perform consistent
with

his

age,

education,

functional capacity.2

past

work

experience

and

residual

20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(g) (1), 416.920(g) (1).

Here, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred at step 5 because he

2 Res idual functional capacity is defined as that which an individual still
is able to do despite the limitations caused by his impairments.
20 C.F.R.
§§404.1545(a) (1), 416.945(a) (1); Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 40.
In assessing a
claimant's residual functional capacity, the ALJ is required to consider his
ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory and other requirements of work.
20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a) (4) I 416.945(a) (4).

I\\>.A072
(Rev. 8/82)

-

7

­

incorrectly assessed plaintiff's residual functional capacity.
The court finds that this argument lacks merit.
Plaintiff claims that the ALJ's residual functional capacity
with

assessment failed to account for his alleged difficult
Crohn's

Disease,

concentration.

irritable

bowel

To the contrary,

syndrome,
the ALJ's

back

pain

and

comprehensive RFC

Finding incorporated all of plaintiff's functional limitations
that the evidence of record supported,

including accommodations

for any alleged back pain and gastrointestinal problems.

Indeed,

the ALJ accounted for plaintiff's alleged pain by affording him
a sit/stand option throughout the workday and by restricting him
to light work that involves only occasional walking and standing,
no kneeling, crouching, crawling and climbing ladders, rope and
scaffolds.

Further, the ALJ accounted for any alleged problems

plaintiff experiences because of Crohnts Disease and irritable
bowel syndrome by limiting him to occupations that allow brief,
unscheduled access to a restroom during the workday and that can
be performed wearing an incontinence protection pad.

Finally,

although plaintiff claims the ALJ failed to account for alleged
concentration

problems t

he

cites

no

indicates he has any such difficulties.

medical

evidence

that

For these reasons, the

court finds that the ALJ properly assessed plaintiff's residual
functional capacity.
In conclusion, after carefully and methodically considering
all of the medical evidence of record,

the ALJ determined that

plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act.
'lI1t.A072
(Rev, 8/82)

8 ­

The

ALJ's

findings

and

conclusions

are

supported

evidence and are not otherwise erroneous.

by

substantial

Therefore, the decision

of the Commissioner must be affirmed.

~~
Gustave Diamond
United States District Judge

cc: J. Kirk Kling, Esq.

630 Pleasant Valley Boulevard

Suite B

Altoona, PA 16602

Stephanie L. Haines
Assistant U.S. Attorney
319 Washington Street
Room 224, Penn Traffic Building
Johnstown, PA 15901

'A072
(Rev. 8/82)

- 9 ­