The opinion of the court was delivered by: O'neill, J.
Plaintiff Sonia Marquez Aponte seeks review of the Social Security Commissioner's decision denying her claim for disability insurance benefits. I referred plaintiff's case to United States Magistrate M. Faith Angell for a Report and Recommendation and on November 21, 2012, Judge Angell recommended that plaintiff's request for review be denied. Dkt. No. 14. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 15, to which defendant filed a response, Dkt. No. 16. For the reasons that follow I will adopt Judge Angell's Report and Recommendation, overrule plaintiff's objections and deny plaintiff's request for review.
BACKGROUND AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
The background of this case and the applicable standard of review are set forth in detail in the Report and Recommendation and will be recited here only as necessary to address the issues presented by plaintiff's objections.
The Report and Recommendation finds that there was substantial evidence in the record to support: (1) the ALJ's determination that plaintiff's severe impairments consist of depression and anxiety and not mixed personality or somatoform disorders, Dkt. No. 14 at ECF p. 19; (2) the ALJ's determination that plaintiff is able to do sedentary work with non-exertional limitations, id. at ECF p. 24; (3) the ALJ's decision to give little weight to the November 13, 2009 Medical Source Statement of Dr. Ballas, id. at ECF p. 38; and (4) the vocational examiner's testimony regarding plaintiff's residual functional capacity -- testimony that the ALJ relied on in reaching his conclusion that plaintiff is capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. Id. at ECF p. 41. Plaintiff contends that Judge Angell erred in not accepting the arguments in her initial briefs in support of her request for judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision. See Dkt. No. 15 at ECF p. 1 ("Plaintiff respectfully suggests that [the Report and Recommendation] did not adequately deal with the various factors raised in [her] two briefs . . . ."). Her objections to the conclusions set forth in the Report and Recommendation essentially reassert issues already presented to the Magistrate Judge. "In the interests of caution, however, this Court [will] briefly review all of [plaintiff's] objections . . . ." Palmer v. Astrue, No. 09-820, 2010 WL 1254266, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2010). Compare Palmer v. Astrue, 410 F. App'x 490, 491 n.1 (3d Cir. 2011) (declining to "consider whether a district court, when considering objections to a report and recommendation, can overrule the objections on the ground that they merely rehash arguments made before the magistrate judge") with Martinez v. Astrue, No. 10-5863, 2011 WL 4974445, at *2-4 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2011) (declining to engage in de novo review of duplicative objections and overruling such objections in an absence of "clear error or manifest injustice in the" report and recommendation). In assessing plaintiff's objections, I must evaluate de novo those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). I may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id.; see also Brophy v. Halter, 153 F. Supp. 2d 667, 669 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
The issue to be addressed on appeal from a denial of benefits is whether the Commissioner's decisions are supported by substantial evidence. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Adorno v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 43, 46 (3d Cir. 1994). "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). "It is less than a preponderance of the evidence but more than a mere scintilla." Jesurum v. Sec'y of U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 48 F.3d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995). "Overall, the substantial evidence standard is deferential and includes deference to inferences drawn from the facts if they, in turn, are supported by substantial evidence." Schaudeck v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 181 F.3d 429, 433 (3d Cir. 1999). Where the ALJ's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, I am bound by them even if I would have reached different conclusions. See Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir. 2001). A reviewing court may not "[w]eigh the evidence or substitute [its own] conclusions for those of the fact-finder." Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 552 (3d Cir. 2005).
When an ALJ renders his decision, he is not required to cite to every piece of evidence in the record. Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 42. Rather, he must only "ensure that there is sufficient development of the record and explanation of findings to permit meaningful review." Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2004); cf. Berry ex rel. M.E. v. Astrue, No. 09-4390, 2011 WL 381911, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2011) (holding that regulation requiring ALJ to consider certain evidence did not require ALJ to discuss explicitly the effect of that evidence on his opinion). "A 'comprehensive explanation' need not always accompany a decision to reject a piece of probative evidence, since 'a sentence or short paragraph would probably suffice' in most instances." Knox v. Astrue, No. 09-1075, 2010 WL 1212561, at *7 (W.D. Pa. May 26, 2010), quoting Cotter v. Harris, 650 F.2d 481, 482 (3d Cir. 1981). Further, an ALJ may reject evidence "without explanation" where there is "[o]verwhelming evidence in the record discount[ing] its probative value, rendering it irrelevant." Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 529 F.3d 198, 204 (3d Cir. 2008).
I consider plaintiff's specific objections as follows.
I. Determination of Severe Impairment
Plaintiff first objects that the Report and Recommendation is in error because it agrees with the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff's severe impairments consist only of depression and anxiety and does not find that the ALJ incorrectly ruled out a diagnosis of mixed personality and/or somatoform disorder. Dkt. No. 15 at ECF p. 2-6. Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ's determination was flawed as "[n]o expert of record has ever contended that the diagnosis of a personality disorder and/or somatoform/somatization disorder is inappropriate here." *fn1 Dkt. No. 15 at ECF p. 3. Plaintiff contends that the Report and Recommendation "would legitimize defendant's right to ignore the diagnosed 'somatoform disorder,' and failure to weigh the diagnosed 'cluster B personality disorder," even though "no expert has indicated that the diagnoses here 'conflict' . . . ." Id. at ECF p. 4. She notes that the ALJ's "'final' decision never states that there is any 'conflict' to be resolved . . . or that a 'choice' has been made." Id. at ECF p. 5. She contends that the ALJ's decision does not sufficiently develop the record on this issue where it "never mentions the diagnosed somatoform/somatization/Section 12.07 disorder, and fails to analyze, discredit or evaluate the potential significance of the diagnosed cluster B personality disorder." Id. at ECF p. 6.
Judge Angell found that the record demonstrated "numerous possible diagnoses for Plaintiff's impairment," and concluded that "there [wa]s substantial evidence for the ALJ's decision finding that Ms. Marquez Aponte's severe impairments consist of depression and anxiety." Dkt. No. 14 at ECF p. 19. I agree with her conclusion. As Judge Angell understood, "[w]hen the medical testimony or conclusions conflict, the ALJ is not only entitled to, but required to, choose between them." Dkt. No. 14 at ECF p. 15, citing Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 705 (3d Cir. 1981) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.927. "[I]n coming to a decision, it is the ALJ's responsibility to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to determine credibility and the relative weights to be given to the evidence." James v. Astrue, No. 11-253, 2011 WL 7143113, at *11 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 27, 2011) report and recommendation adopted, No. 11-253, 2012 WL 346676, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2012). There is "no authority for the proposition that an ALJ must cite all evidence a claimant presents . . . ." Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 529 F.3d 198, 204 (3d Cir. 2008) (upholding an ALJ's determination that omitted certain physician's opinions because the omitted opinions were inconsistent with other substantial evidence).
In reaching his determination the ALJ relied on a wealth of evidence contained in the record, including plaintiff's complaints, her treatment notes, a medical source statement and the information presented at her December 7, 2009 hearing. Dkt. No. 6-2 at ECF p. 26. As the ALJ noted in his decision, plaintiff's attorney stated at her hearing that he did not "see a formal diagnosis for the claimant's abdominal problems and complaints of burning pain." Id. Likewise, the ALJ pointed to "a medical source statement by [plaintiff's] treating physician" that referred to " a variety of limitations due to 'weakness/pain on exam' but state[d] not even one diagnosis." Id. It is clear from the record, however, that the ALJ considered both the personality disorder and somatoform disorder diagnoses in rendering his decision. With respect the personality disorder diagnosis, the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination references a medical source statement by Dr. Christos Ballas in which Dr. Ballas diagnosed plaintiff with "bipolar disorder and a mixed PD (personality disorder)." Dkt. No. 6-2 at ECF p. 29, citing Dkt. No. 6-14 at ECF p. 62 (Exhibit 32F to the administrative transcript).
With respect to the somatoform disorder diagnosis, at plaintiff's hearing, listening to plaintiff's testimony regarding a burning feeling in her hands, the ALJ asked whether "there [was] a diagnosis attached to that?" Dkt. No. 6-2 at ECF p. 45. Plaintiff's attorney first responded that he d[id]n't see a formal diagnosis attached to that, judge. Nor do I see a formal diagnosis attached to the repeated hospitalizations for abdominal problems and vomiting. At one point, for that, they mentioned gastroenteritis, at one point, but through most of it, ...