The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KELLY L. WATTERS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 23-1593
)
MARTIN O’MALLEY,1 )
Commissioner, Social Security Administration, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2024, upon consideration of the
parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court, after reviewing 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.,
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
1 Martin O’Malley is substituted as the defendant in this matter, replacing former Acting
Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) and 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
1
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)).2
2 Plaintiff raises the following arguments on appeal: (1) the Administrative Law
Judge’s (“ALJ”) assessment of Plaintiff’s listing level impairments was not supported by
substantial evidence; and (2) Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) was not
supported by substantial evidence. (Doc. No. 9). Plaintiff essentially asks for the Court
to come to its own conclusion based on evidence she deems persuasive and determinative
to her case. The Court cannot and will not do so and, therefore, affirms the ALJ’s
decision.
Plaintiff takes issue with the ALJ’s assessment of Listings 12.04 and 12.06 and
points to evidence within the record she suggests support greater limitations in the Listings
“paragraph B” criteria. (Doc. No. 9 at 24-27). Plaintiff does the same in regard to her
RFC assessment, stating the ALJ should have crafted a more restrictive RFC incorporating
her inability to consistently and reliably interact with others, her inability to stay on-task,
and her difficulty in meeting work quotas. (Id. at 28-30). Defendant points out that the
evidence Plaintiff points to in terms of the “paragraph B” criteria was either addressed by
the ALJ or contradicted by normal findings within the record. (Doc. No. 12 at 11-16).
Moreover, Defendant correctly acknowledges that Plaintiff does not cite a single page of
the record in support of her contention that the RFC was not supported by substantial
evidence. (Id. at 17). The Court agrees with the Defendant that the ALJ’s decision is
supported by substantial evidence.
As the evidence Plaintiff points to was addressed by the ALJ in a well-reasoned
and thorough decision, all Plaintiff does is ask the Court to reweigh the evidence.
However, 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. 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). To the extent the Court is being asked to come to its own conclusion based on the
evidence, it declines to do so.
The ALJ’s findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed.
2
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED.
s/Alan N. Bloch
United States District Judge
ecf: Counsel of record
3