United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Robert C. Mitchell, United States magistrate Judge
It is respectfully recommended that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No.10) be denied; that defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No.14) be granted, and that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.
Presently before the Court for disposition are cross motions for summary judgment.
On August 30, 2013, Keli Elaine Barnes by her counsel, filed a complaint pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §405(g) for review of the Commissioner's final determination disallowing her claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Sections 1614 and 1631 of the Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1381 cf.
Barnes filed an application for Supplemental Security Income Benefits on June 8, 2010 (R.183-190) and benefits were denied on July 19, 2010 (R.99-103). She protectively filed the instant application for benefits on November 30, 2010 (R.191-200). On January 26, 2011, benefits were denied (R.106-115). On February 14, 2011, the plaintiff requested a hearing (R.116) and pursuant to that request a hearing was held on December 15, 2011 (R.37-82). In a decision filed on February 13, 2012, an Administrative Law Judge denied benefits (R.20-32), and on February 23, 2012, the plaintiff requested reconsideration of that determination (R.17-18). On July 2, 2013, the Appeals Council affirmed the prior determination (R.1-3). The instant complaint was filed on August 30, 2013.
In reviewing an administrative determination of the Commissioner, the question before any court is whether there is substantial evidence in the agency record to support the findings of the Commissioner that the plaintiff failed to sustain his/her burden of demonstrating that he/she was disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971); Adorno v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 43 (3d Cir. 1994).
It is provided in 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) that:
The court shall have power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing. The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive....
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Johnson v. Comm'r. 529 F.3d 198 (3d Cir.2008) and the court may not set aside a decision supported by substantial evidence. Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358 (3d Cir.1999).
The purpose of the Supplemental Security Income Program is to provide additional income to persons of limited resources who are aged, blind or disabled. 42 U.S.C. §1381; Chalmers v. Shalala, 23 F.3d 752 (3d Cir. 1994). To be eligible for such benefits, an individual's income must not exceed a certain established maximum and he/she must fulfill certain eligibility requirements.
As set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.905(a) disability is defined as:
the inability to do any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.
In addition, a person will be considered disabled if he/she is
(a) ... permanently and totally disabled as defined under a State plan approved under title XIV or XVI of the Social Security Act, as in effect for October 1972; (b) ... received aid under the State plan ... for the month of December 1973 and for at least one month prior to July 1973; ...