United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.
NOW, this 26th day of
September, 2019, it is hereby
Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 22) are
Court APPROVES and ADOPTS
Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski's Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 21);
Plaintiff's request for review (ECF No. 15) is
Clerk of Court shall mark this case as
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Court has carefully considered
Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Lynne A.
Sitarski's Report and Recommendation
(”R&R”). There is no need to repeat the
history or facts of the case as Judge Sitarski's R&R
adequately relays that information.
The Court concludes that Judge Sitarski has correctly
and sufficiently addressed Plaintiff's arguments, and,
thus, adopts her R&R. Nonetheless, reviewing the issues
raised in the objections de novo, Cont'l Cas. Co. v.
Dominick D'Andrea, Inc., 150 F.3d 245, 250 (3d Cir.
1998), the Court reaches the following additional
1. Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ failed to
reasonably explain her RFC assessment. The Court disagrees
because the ALJ sufficiently demonstrated how the RFC
assessment is supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff contends that while the ALJ provided a
summary of the evidence, she did not provide reasoning for
the specific components in the RFC. Judge Sitarski
sufficiently addressed this argument. The Court further notes
that the record belies Plaintiff's assessment. The
ALJ's decision includes a very lengthy and comprehensive
review of the evidence which includes within it reasons why
various evidence was accepted and to what extent. A reading
of the ALJ's opinion and the description of how she
weighed the evidence makes clear how she formulated the RFC
Plaintiff also asserts that Judge Sitarski should not
have placed any weight on the fact that there is no objective
evidence of a right wrist impairment until at least five
years after Plaintiff's alleged disability onset date.
The ALJ made similar comments regarding various impairments.
The Court disagrees with Plaintiff that this line of thought
has no value. These inquiries go to the credibility of