United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
AMBROSE, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF
Nos. 9 and 11). Both parties have filed Briefs in Support of
their Motions. (ECF Nos. 10 and 12). After careful
consideration of the submissions of the parties, and based on
my Opinion set forth below, I am granting in part and denying
in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
9) and granting in part and denying in part Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 11).
brought this action for review of the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security denying his applications for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
insurance benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act.
Plaintiff filed his applications alleging he had been
disabled since January 1, 1994. (ECF No. 7-7, pp. 2, 7). On
September 9, 2015, Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”), Daniel F. Cusick, held a hearing. (ECF
No. 7-3). On October 19, 2015, the ALJ again found that
Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act.
(ECF No. 7-2, pp. 16-30).
exhausting all of his administrative remedies thereafter,
Plaintiff filed this action. The parties have filed
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 9 and 11). The
issues are now ripe for review.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
standard of review in social security cases is whether
substantial evidence exists in the record to support the
Commissioner's decision. Allen v. Bowen, 881
F.2d 37, 39 (3d Cir. 1989). Substantial evidence has been
defined as “more than a mere scintilla. It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate.” Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 900,
901 (3d Cir. 1995), quoting Richardson v. Perales,
402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Additionally, the
Commissioner's findings of fact, if supported by
substantial evidence, are conclusive. 42 U.S.C. §405(g);
Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 406 (3d Cir.
1979). A district court cannot conduct a de novo
review of the Commissioner's decision or re-weigh the
evidence of record. Palmer v. Apfel, 995 F.Supp.
549, 552 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Where the ALJ's findings of
fact are supported by substantial evidence, a court is bound
by those findings, even if the court would have decided the
factual inquiry differently. Hartranft v. Apfel, 181
F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999). To determine whether a finding
is supported by substantial evidence, however, the district
court must review the record as a whole. See, 5
eligible for social security benefits, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that he cannot engage in substantial gainful
activity because of a 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 at least 12 months. 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A);
Brewster v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 581, 583 (3d Cir.
Commissioner has provided the ALJ with a five-step sequential
analysis to use when evaluating the disabled status of each
claimant. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520(a). The ALJ must
determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in
substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether the
claimant has a severe impairment; (3) if the claimant has a
severe impairment, whether it meets or equals the criteria
listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P., appx. 1; (4) if the
impairment does not satisfy one of the impairment listings,
whether the claimant's impairments prevent him from
performing his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is
incapable of performing his past relevant work, whether he
can perform any other work which exists in the national
economy, in light of his age, education, work experience and
residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. §404.1520. The
claimant carries the initial burden of demonstrating by
medical evidence that he is unable to return to his previous
employment (steps 1-4). Dobrowolsky, 606 F.2d at
406. Once the claimant meets this burden, the burden of proof
shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant can
engage in alternative substantial gainful activity (step 5).
district court, after reviewing the entire record may affirm,
modify, or reverse the decision with or without remand to the
Commissioner for rehearing. Podedworny v. Harris,
745 F.2d 210, 221 (3d Cir. 1984).
argues that the ALJ erred in failing to find that Plaintiff
meets the requirements of Listing 12.05(C). (ECF No. 10, pp.
18-19). In step three of the analysis, the ALJ must determine
if the claimant's impairment meets or is equal to one of
the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 404, Subpt. P, Appx.
1. Jesurum v. v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 48 F.3d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995). An applicant
is per se disabled if the impairment is equivalent
to a listed impairment and, thus, no further analysis is
necessary. Burnett v. Commissioner, 220 F.3d 112,
119 (3d Cir. 2000).
issue in this case is Listing 12.05 (intellectual
disability). See, 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app.
1 §12.05. Listing 12.05 - ...