Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Librinca v. Berryhill

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

May 3, 2019

LORI LYNN LIBRINCA, Plaintiff
v.
Nancy Berryhill, Commissioner Defendant

          MARIANI, D.J.

          REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

          WILLIAM I. ARBUCKLE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Lori Lynn Librinca, an adult individual who resides within the Middle District of Pennsylvania, seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

         This matter has been referred to me to prepare a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After reviewing the parties' briefs, the Commissioner's final decision, and the relevant portions of the certified administrative transcript, I find the Commissioner's final decision is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, I recommend that the Commissioner's final decision be AFFIRMED.

         II. BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On November 15, 2013, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 15-5, p. 7; Admin Tr. 111). In this application, Plaintiff alleged she became disabled as of May 1, 2009, when she was forty-seven (47) years old, due to the following conditions: 1. RSD (Reflex Sympathetic Disorder); 2. Injury to both knees; 3. Incontenence (sic); and, 4. Right shoulder pain. (Doc. 15-6, p. 6; Admin Tr. 121). Plaintiff alleges that the combination of these conditions affects her ability to walk [unable to walk (Doc. 15-6, p. 28; Admin Tr. 143)] or work because medication from her pain pump makes her sleepy. (Doc. 15-6, p. 26; Admin Tr. 141). Plaintiff has at least a high school education and four years of college. (Doc. 16-2, p. 6; Admin Tr. 506). Before the onset of her impairments, Plaintiff worked as a Registered Nurse. (Doc. 16-2, p. 7; Admin Tr. 507).

         On December 27, 2013, Plaintiff's application was denied at the initial level of administrative review. (Doc. 15-4, pp. 2-5; Admin Tr. 87-90). On January 14, 2014, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing. (Doc. 15-4, pp. 6-7; Admin Tr. 91-92).

         On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff, assisted by her counsel, appeared and testified during a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Michelle Wolfe (the “ALJ”). (Doc. 16-2, pp. 2-20; Admin. Tr. 502-520). On November 25, 2015 (transmitted December 1, 2015), the ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff's application for benefits. (Doc. 15-2, pp. 9-17; Admin. Tr. 8-16). On February 2, 2016, Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council of the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (“Appeals Council”). (Doc. 15-2, p. 44-45; Admin. Tr. 43-44).

         On April 26, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (Doc. 15-2, pp. 2-4; Admin. Tr. 1-3).

         On June 23, 2107, Plaintiff began this action by filing a Complaint. (Doc. 1). In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ's decision denying the application is not supported by substantial evidence, and improperly applies the relevant law and regulations. (Doc. 1, p. 2). As relief, Plaintiff requests that the Court “… award a period of disability and disability benefits commencing on the date of eligibility.” (Doc. 1, p. 2). Plaintiff's Brief mad an additional request for “remand for benefits” or alternatively “remand for further proceedings” (Doc. 19, p. 4).

         On November 24, 2017, the Commissioner filed an Answer. (Doc. 14). In the Answer, the Commissioner maintains that the decision holding that Plaintiff is not entitled to disability insurance benefits was made in accordance with the law and regulations and is supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. 14). Along with her Answer, the Commissioner filed a certified transcript of the administrative record. (Docs. 15 & 16).

         Plaintiff's Brief (Doc. 19), and the Commissioner's Brief (Doc. 22), have been filed. Plaintiff did not file a Reply Brief. This matter is now ripe for decision.

         III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

         A. Substantial Evidence Review - the Role of This Court

         When reviewing the Commissioner's final decision denying a claimant's application for benefits, this Court's review is limited to the question of whether the findings of the final decision-maker are supported by substantial evidence in the record. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 529 F.3d 198, 200 (3d Cir. 2008); Ficca v. Astrue, 901 F.Supp.2d 533, 536 (M.D. Pa. 2012). Substantial evidence “does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence, but rather such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence but more than a mere scintilla. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). A single piece of evidence is not substantial evidence if the ALJ ignores countervailing evidence or fails to resolve a conflict created by the evidence. Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058, 1064 (3d Cir. 1993). But in an adequately developed factual record, substantial evidence may be “something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [the ALJ's decision] from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Maritime Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966).

         “In determining if the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence the court must scrutinize the record as a whole.” Leslie v. Barnhart, 304 F.Supp.2d 623, 627 (M.D. Pa. 2003). The question before this Court, therefore, is not whether Plaintiff is disabled, but whether the Commissioner's finding that Plaintiff is not disabled is supported by substantial evidence and was reached based upon a correct application of the relevant law. See Arnold v. Colvin, No. 3:12-CV-02417, 2014 WL 940205, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2014) (“[I]t has been held that an ALJ's errors of law denote a lack of substantial evidence.”) (alterations omitted); Burton v. Schweiker, 512 F.Supp. 913, 914 (W.D. Pa. 1981) (“The Secretary's determination as to the status of a claim requires the correct application of the law to the facts.”); see also Wright v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 675, 678 (3d Cir. 1990) (noting that the scope of review on legal matters is plenary); Ficca, 901 F.Supp.2d at 536 (“[T]he court has plenary review of all legal issues . . . .”).

         B. Standards Governing the ALJ's Application of The Five-Step Sequential Evaluation Process

         To receive benefits under the Social Security Act by reason of disability, a claimant must demonstrate an inability to “engage in 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 twelve months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a).[1] To satisfy this requirement, a claimant must have a severe physical or mental impairment that makes it impossible to do his or her previous work or any other substantial gainful activity that exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a). To receive benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, a claimant must show that he or she contributed to the insurance program, is under retirement age, and became disabled prior to the date on which he or she was last insured. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a); 20 C.F.R. § 404.131(a).

         In making this determination at the administrative level, the ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a). Under this process, the ALJ must sequentially determine: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the claimant's impairment meets or equals a listed impairment; (4) whether the claimant is able to do his or her past relevant work; and (5) whether the claimant is able to do any other work, considering his or her age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

         Between steps three and four, the ALJ must also assess a claimant's RFC. RFC is defined as “that which an individual is still able to do despite the limitations caused by his or her impairment(s).” Burnett v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 220 F.3d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e); 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(1). In making this assessment, the ALJ considers all the claimant's medically determinable impairments, including any non-severe impairments identified by the ALJ at step two of his or her analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(2).

         At steps one through four, the claimant bears the initial burden of demonstrating the existence of a medically determinable impairment that prevents him or her in engaging in any of his or her past relevant work. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512; Mason, 994 F.2d at 1064. Once this burden has been met by the claimant, it shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that jobs exist in significant number in the national economy that the claimant could perform that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.