SWAIM v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KAREN J. SWAIM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 23-1132

)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )

)

Defendant. )

)

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 25th 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 reweigh the evidence, nor reverse,

1

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’s (“ALJ”) decision finding her

not disabled is insufficiently supported because the ALJ erred in her evaluation of the

medical opinion offered by Dr. Donald McFarland. (Doc. No. 9). As explained herein,

any error the ALJ may have made was harmless; accordingly, the Court will affirm the

ALJ’s non-disability determination.

In this matter, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to adequately address

supportability and consistency in her finding that Dr. McFarland’s opinion was not

persuasive. (Doc. No. 9 at 5-10). This error was harmful, Plaintiff argues, because the

ALJ likely would have formulated a more restrictive RFC had she found Dr. McFarland’s

opinion to be more persuasive. (Id.). The ALJ analyzed Dr. McFarland’s opinion and

stated the following:

Another provider stated [Plaintiff] was incapable of even “low stress” jobs,

had memory loss and balance issues, could sit for less than 2 hours, could

stand or walk for less than 2 hours, was incapable of employment, and had

attention and concentration interference occasionally (21F). The opinion

is not persuasive, as it is not supported by and is not consistent with the

evidence. Statements on the ultimate issue are reserved for the

Commissioner. Further, these findings greatly overstate the extent of the

claimant’s limitations, as physical exam show good strength, good gait,

good ability to care for himself, and many other normal findings (2F/7;

5F/20; 6F/4, 49, 127; 7F/28; 18F/26). Therefore, this opinion is not

persuasive.

(R. 42). In this explanation of her persuasiveness determination, the ALJ arguably

conflated supportability and consistency. Supportability is a measure of the relevancy of

“objective medical evidence and supporting explanations presented by a medical source . . .

to support his or her medical opinion(s)[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1). Consistency

measures the agreeableness of medical opinions with “evidence from other medical sources

and nonmedical sources in the claim[.]” Id. § 404.1520c(c). One court has explained the

distinction between supportability and consistency thus: “supportability relates to the extent

to which a medical source has articulated support for the medical source’s own opinion,

while consistency relates to the relationship between a medical source’s opinion and other

evidence within the record.” Cook v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:20-CV-1197, 2021 WL

1565832, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2021). Here, the ALJ’s decision, while mentioning both

consistency and supportability, only cites to evidence relevant to the consistency of Dr.

McFarland’s opinion with Plaintiff’s physical exam findings from other sources. (R. 42).

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. 13) is GRANTED.

s/Alan N. Bloch

United States District Judge

ecf: Counsel of record

However, even if this was in error, it does not require remand. Remand is

unnecessary when the Court can determine with confidence that an error did not impact the

outcome of the case. See Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 553 (3d Cir. 2005).

Here, the Court is confident that the outcome of Plaintiff’s case was not impacted by the

ALJ arguably conflating supportability and consistency because Dr. McFarland’s opinion

was unaccompanied by any supporting evidence or explanations. See Pipkin v. Kijakazi,

No. 22-2-E, 2023 WL 411291, at *1 n.2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2023) (finding the ALJ

committed harmless error when conflating supportability and consistency because the

doctor’s opinions were unaccompanied by supporting explanations). As Defendant

points out, Dr. McFarland’s opinion was rendered largely by checkmarks and without any

supporting explanation. (Ex. 21F). Indeed, Dr. McFarland’s opinion contains very few

explanations, such as “memory loss, balance issues,” for his conclusion that Plaintiff was

incapable of even “low stress” work. (Ex. 21F/2). Dr. McFarland also stated that

Plaintiff was “incapable of meaningful activity” as a blanket answer for much of page three

of his opinion. (Ex. 21F/3). Dr. McFarland’s absence of any meaningful explanation

for his opined limitations made it nearly impossible for the ALJ to analyze the

supportability of this opinion. Accordingly, any potential error on this point was

harmless.

The ALJ’s findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.

Accordingly, the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed.

3