United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
ALAN N. BLOCH, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court, upon review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision re-determining Plaintiff's eligibility for benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(H)(iii) and denying her 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); Brown v. Bowen , 845 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1988). 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)).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (document No. 8) is DENIED and Defendant's Motion for Summary ...