MCCHESSNEY v. ASTRUE

Filing 14

ORDER denying 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 11 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Alan N. Bloch on 03/25/2014. (dpo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VICKY M. McCHESSNEY,

)
)

Plaintiff,

)
)

vs.

)

civil Action No. 12-215

)

MICHAEL J. AS TRUE ,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

)
)
)

Defendant.

)

o

R D E R

AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2014, 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)

i

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

1

As stated above, substantial evidence supports the decision of
the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") that Plaintiff is not disabled
under the Social Security Act. The ALJ adequately explained the
rationale for the weight he assigned to the evidence in the record,
and substantial evidence supports his findings.
One point, however, requires further discussion. Plaintiff
argues that the ALJ failed to find that she had additional impairments
that were severe at Step Two of the analysis, specifically, her migraine
headaches and neck pain. However, she fails to acknowledge that the
Step Two determination as to whether she is suffering from a severe
impairment is a threshold analysis requiring the showing of only one
severe impairment. See Bradleyv. Barnhart 175 Fed. Appx. 87, 90 (7 th
Cir. 2006). In other words, as long as a claim is not denied at Step
Two, it is not generally necessary for the ALJ specifically to have
found any additional alleged impairment to be severe. See Salles v.
Comm/r of Soc. Sec., 229 Fed. Appx. 140, 145 n.2 (3d Cir. 2007) i Lee
v. Astrue, 2007 WL 1101281, at *3 n.5 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2007) i Lyons
v. Barnhart, 2006 WL 1073076, at *3 (W.D. Pa. March 271 2006). Since
Plaintiff s claim was not denied at Step Two, it does not matter whether
the ALJ correctly or incorrectly found Plaintiff/s other alleged
impairments to be non-severe.
1

l

Of course even if an impairment is non-severe, it may s 11 affect
a claimant s residual functional capacity ("RFC"). In assessing a
claimant/s RFC, the ALJ "must consider limitations and restrictions
imposed by all of an individual's impairments, even those that are
not 'severe. '" S.S.R. 96 8p, 1996 WL 374184 (S.S.A.), at *5 (July 2,
1996). See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a) (2), 416.945(a) (2). "While
a 'not severe' impairment (s) standing alone may not significantly limit
an individual's ability to do basic work activities it may - when
considered with limitations or restrictions due to other impairments
- be critical to the outcome of a claim." S.S.R. 96-8p at *5.
Accordingly merely because the ALJ did not find Plaintiff s migraine
2
1

1

l

1

1

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment (document No.9) is DENIED and defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment (document No. II)

is GRANTED.

N. Bloch
United States District Judge
ecf:

Counsel of record

headaches and neck pain to be severe does not mean that these conditions
could not still have affected Plaintiff's RFC. Here, however,
substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings as to Plaintiff's
functional limitations. As to her migraine headaches, the ALJ found
that the medical record did not support Plaintiff's claims that these
headaches had more than a minimal limitation on her ability to perform
basic work activities. The Court notes that no medical source,
including Dr. Asha Swaim, M.D. , opined as to any limitations that would
result from Plaintiff's headaches. As to Plaintiff's neck pain, the
record does not suggest any additional limitations that should have
been included in the RFC based on this condition, nor does Plaintiff
suggest what these additional limitations would be. Accordingly,
there is no basis for Plaintiff's argument regarding the ALJ' s analysis
at Step Two or as to her RFC.
3