Castellano v. Nancy A. Berryhill Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
| Decision Date | 24 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-1035 |
| Parties | MICHAEL A. CASTELLANO, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Chief Judge Conner)
(Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab)
Plaintiff Michael A. Castellano ("Mr. Castellano") seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying his 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 the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to prepare a report and recommended disposition pursuant to the provisionsof 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons expressed herein, we find that the Commissioner's final decision denying Mr. Castellano's claim should be AFFIRMED, and that Mr. Castellano's request for the award of benefits or a new administrative hearing should be DENIED.
Mr. Castellano is an adult individual who resides within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Tr. 137. Mr. Castellano was born on November 29, 1962, and at the time of his alleged onset date, he was fifty years old and considered as an individual of "closely approaching advanced age."2 Tr. 119. He completed education through the ninth grade, and later went on to work a fifteen-year career as a mail carrier for the United States Postal Service. Tr. 139. Mr. Castellano's disability claim is related to a long history of back pain and various other physical ailments. In August of 2013, he sustained injuries to his upper and lower backafter a motor vehicle accident, which ultimately caused him to stop working. Tr. 170.
On January 30, 2014, Mr. Castellano protectively filed an application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Tr. 108-112. He alleged that he is disabled due to the following: pain and weakness, back injury, nerve pain in legs and right foot, right shoulder injury, neck injury, depression, carpal tunnel in both hands, cardiomyopathy, and asthma. Tr. 138. On March 20, 2014, Mr. Castellano's claim was denied at the initial level of administrative review. Tr. 85-89. Thereafter, he requested an administrative hearing. Tr. 90-91. A hearing was convened on September 16, 2015 before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") where Mr. Castellano appeared and testified with the assistance of his attorney. Tr. 47-70. Impartial vocational expert Carmine Abraham also appeared and testified. Id.
On September 23, 2015, the ALJ denied Mr. Castellano's claim in a written decision. Tr. 7-23. Following the ALJ's adverse decision, Mr. Castellano requested further review of his claim by the Appeals Council of the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review ("Appeals Council"). Tr. 24-26. On April 20, 2017, the Appeals Council denied Mr. Castellano's request for review, making theALJ's September 2015 decision the final decision of the Commissioner subject to judicial review by this Court. Tr. 1-6.
Mr. Castellano initiated this action by filing a complaint on June 13, 2017. Doc. 1. In his complaint, Mr. Castellano seeks judicial review of the denial of benefits. Id. As relief, he requests that he receives relief that is proper. Id. On August 14, 2017, the Commissioner filed her answer. Doc. 8. The Commissioner contends that the ALJ's decision is correct and in accordance with the applicable law and regulations, and that the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Id. Together with her answer, the Commissioner filed a certified transcript of the record of the administrative proceedings in this case. Doc. 9. This matter has been fully briefed by the parties and is ripe for decision. Doc. 12; Doc. 13; Doc. 14.
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 Mr. Castellano is disabled, but whether the Commissioner's finding that he 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'serrors 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)( that the scope of review on legal matters is plenary); Ficca, 901 F.Supp.2d at 536 ().
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 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A); see also 20 C.F.R. §404.1505(a). 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 disabledprior 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. 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), 404.1545(a)(1). In making this assessment, the ALJ considers all of the claimant's medically determinable impairments, including any non-severe impairment 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. §§404.15123; 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 are consistent with the claimant's age, education, work experience and RFC. 20 C.F.R. §404.1512(f); Mason, 994 F.2d at 1064.
The ALJ's disability determination must also meet certain basic substantive requisites. Most significant among these legal benchmarks is a requirement that the ALJ adequately explain the legal and factual basis for this disability determination. Thus, in order to facilitate review of the decision under the substantial evidence standard, the ALJ's decision must be accompanied by "a clear and satisfactory explication of the basis on which it rests." Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir. 1981). Conflicts in the evidence must be resolved and the ALJ must indicatewhich evidence was accepted, which evidence was rejected, and the reasons for rejecting certain evidence. Id. at 706-707. In addition, "[t]he ALJ must indicate in his decision which...
To continue reading
Request your trial