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.

Noce v. Saul

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

September 26, 2019

MARIA NOCE
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

          ORDER

          EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

         AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2019, it is hereby ORDERED that:

         (1) Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 22) are OVERRULED;[1]

         (2) The Court APPROVES and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21);

         (3) Plaintiff's request for review (ECF No. 15) is DENIED; and

         (4) The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as CLOSED.

         AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1]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 conclusions:

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 assessment.

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 Plaintiff's ...


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.