# CAMPBELL v. KIJAKAZI

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · September 8, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10419053

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 8, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10419053

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DILLON CAMPBELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-419
)
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, )
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant. )

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 8th day of September, 2023, upon consideration of the parties’
cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court, upon review of the Commissioner of Social
Security’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits under
Subchapter II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq., and his claim for supplemental
security income benefits under Subchapter XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., finds that
the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and, accordingly, affirms.
See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1153-54 (2019); Jesurum v.
Secretary of U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs, 48 F.3d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing
Brown v. Bowen, 845 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1988)). See also Berry v. Sullivan, 738 F. Supp.
942, 944 (W.D. Pa. 1990) (if supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner’s decision
must be affirmed, as a federal court may neither reweigh the evidence, nor reverse, merely
because it would have decided the claim differently) (citing Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 705
(3d Cir. 1981)).1

1 Plaintiff argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding the opinions
of the non-treating state agency psychologists, who did not have access to the entire record, more
persuasive than that of his treating therapist, Terry Logan, LCSW, in formulating his residual
functional capacity (“RFC”). The Court disagrees and finds that substantial evidence supports
the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff is not disabled.

The Court first notes that Plaintiff, in emphasizing Ms. Logan’s treating relationship with
Plaintiff and the state agency reviewing psychologists’ lack of such a relationship, seems to be
invoking what is commonly known as the “treating physician rule.” However, for cases such as
this one, filed on or after March 27, 2017, the regulations have eliminated this rule. Compare 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (applying to cases prior to the amendment of the
regulations) with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a), 416.920c(a) (applying to later cases). See also 82
Fed. Reg. 5844-01, at 5853 (Jan. 18, 2017). While the medical source’s treating relationship
with the claimant is still a valid and important consideration, “the two most important factors for
determining the persuasiveness of medical opinions are consistency and supportability.” 82 Fed.
Reg. at 5853. See also §§ 404.1520c(b) and (c), 416.920c(b) and (c). Here, the ALJ properly
focused primarily on the consistency and supportability of the various opinions in this matter in
making her findings.

As part of his argument, Plaintiff asserts that the opinions of the state agency reviewing
psychologists – dated June 29, 2020 and November 24, 2020 – were issued without the benefit of
the full record, particularly Ms. Logan’s records including her March 7, 2021 opinion. However,
the fact that the state reviewing agents’ opinions were rendered before other evidence became
available does not mean the ALJ was prohibited from finding them to be persuasive. See
Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 361 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The Social Security
regulations impose no limit on how much time may pass between a report and the ALJ's decision
in reliance on it.”). While the state agency reviewing psychologists may not have had access to
Ms. Logan’s opinion, they did have access to a number of Plaintiff’s treatment records from
Primary Health Network, through which Plaintiff treated with Ms. Logan at Clarion Community
Health Center Behavioral. Further, there is no indication what part, if any, of the record other
than her own treatment notes Ms. Logan was familiar with when she offered her opinion.

Moreover, while there was later evidence to which the state reviewing agents had no
access, the ALJ was aware of and expressly considered and discussed this evidence in evaluating
the opinions and formulating the RFC. She, in fact, specifically increased Plaintiff’s limitations
in understanding and concentrating over those offered by the state agency reviewing
psychologists’ opinions based on this later evidence. (R. 23). This demonstrates that, far from
rubber-stamping these opinions, the ALJ considered them in the context of the entire record.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
No. 17) is GRANTED as set forth herein.

s/Alan N. Bloch
United States District Judge

ecf: Counsel of record

Plaintiff also offers his own analysis of what the evidence showed in regard to the
consistency and supportability of the medical opinions. However, in doing so, he is essentially
asking the Court to reweigh the evidence and reach its own conclusion. If supported by
substantial evidence, though, the Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed, as a federal court
may neither reweigh the evidence, nor reverse, merely because it would have decided the claim
differently. See Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g));
Monsour Med. Ctr. v. Heckler, 806 F.2d 1185, 1190-91 (3d Cir. 1986); Berry, 738 F. Supp. at
944 (citing Cotter, 642 F.2d at 705). Moreover, “[t]he presence of evidence in the record that
supports a contrary conclusion does not undermine the [ALJ’s] decision so long as the record
provides substantial support for that decision.” Malloy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 306 Fed. Appx.
761, 764 (3d Cir. 2009). The Court finds here that substantial evidence does support the ALJ’s
decision and, therefore, it will affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10419053. Public record. Not legal advice.