noting the ALJ’s decision must be “read as a whole”
How later courts described this case
- noting the ALJ’s decision must be “read as a whole”
- if supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner’s decision must be affirmed, as a 1 federal court may neither reweigh the evidence, nor reverse, merely because it would have decided the claim differently
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHANE RUSSELL SMITH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-163-J
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 2025, 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.,
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
1
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 contends that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to properly
consider and explain his analysis of the medical opinion of Joseph Tavares, M.D. (Doc.
No. 15). Plaintiff also asserts that the ALJ erred in analyzing his subjective complaints.
(Id.). Upon careful review, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff and finds that substantial
evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.
Dr. Tavares, a consultative examiner, concluded Plaintiff could perform light level
lifting with a variety of limitations, including postural, manipulative, and environmental
limitations. (Ex. 8F). The ALJ found this opinion not to be persuasive because the
severity of the limitations assessed by Dr. Tavares were not supported by Dr. Tavares’ own
examination or other physical examinations in the record and the opinion was inconsistent
with the wider record. (R. 31-32). The ALJ, after reviewing all the evidence, concluded
that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work with several additional limitations. (R. 27).
Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not properly evaluate the consistency and
supportability factors in relation to Dr. Tavares’ opinion. (Doc. No. 15 at 8-14).
Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred by failing to make specific references to
Dr. Tavares’ examination in support of the statement that the severity of Dr. Tavares’
opined limitations was not supported by his examination. (Id. at 10-11). Further,
Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ did not engage in a proper consistency analysis, as the ALJ
did not compare Dr. Tavares’ findings with the wider record. (Id. at 12-14). As to
supportability, the ALJ acknowledged Dr. Tavares’ examination findings, including that
Plaintiff presented with an antalgic gait, could not walk on his heels and toes without
difficulty, and could not do a full squat. (R. 28, 31). Based on these findings, Dr.
Tavares opined that Plaintiff was moderately restricted in that he could perform light level
lifting, but could only sit for three hours, stand for three hours, and walk for three hours in
an eight-hour day. (R. 31). Dr. Tavares also opined that Plaintiff be limited to
occasional reaching overhead, and included some manipulative, postural, and
environmental limitations. (Id.). The ALJ noted that Dr. Tavares’ opined limitations
were not supported by Dr. Tavares’ own examination, as his examination findings were
supportive of light exertional work, which differed from the light work with additional
limitations that Dr. Tavares recommended for Plaintiff. (R. 31). Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s argument on this point is without merit.
Further, as to consistency, the ALJ noted that other treatment providers found that
Plaintiff had a normal gait, motor strength, motor power, and muscle tone in his upper and
lower extremities, which was inconsistent with Dr. Tavares’ findings that Plaintiff could not
walk on his heels or toes without difficulty and could not do a full squat. (R. 28-29, 31-32);
2
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED.
s/Mark R. Hornak, J.
United States District Judge
ecf: Counsel of record
see Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 504-5 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting the ALJ’s decision must
be “read as a whole”). The ALJ discussed Dr. Tavares’ findings throughout the decision,
specifically in relation to other findings within the record and in contrast to his opined
limitations. (R. 28-29, 31-32). This analysis is commensurate with agency regulations
requiring articulation of the supportability of the opinion in comparison to the medical
source’s own findings and the consistency of the opinion in relation to other evidence within
the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(2), 416.920c(c)(2); see also Cook v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., No. 20-1197, 2021 WL 1565832, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2021). Accordingly, the
ALJ’s analysis of Dr. Tavares’ opinion is supported by substantial evidence.
Plaintiff also asserts that the ALJ erred in his analysis of Plaintiff’s subjective
complaints. (Doc. No. 15 at 14-16). Plaintiff takes issue with the ALJ’s analysis of his
subjective complaints and contends that the ALJ did not explain why he found these
complaints not credible. (Id.). Plaintiff’s argument overlooks that the ALJ explained
that he found Plaintiff’s testimony to be inconsistent with record evidence. (R. 28-29).
The ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff’s complaints that he had problems with his concentration,
memory, and nightmares since the time of his electrocution accident, and that he suffered
from post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and panic attacks since the incident. (Id.).
Further, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff complained of having total body paresthesia involving
the arms, legs, and trunk. (R. 29). However, the ALJ explained that these complaints
were not supported by the objective evidence; indeed, he specifically mentioned that Dr.
John Talbott, M.D., concluded that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints did not correlate with
any objective findings. (R. 29 (citing Ex. 16F)). Additionally, the ALJ explained that
the record showed Plaintiff had many normal mental findings, including unremarkable
mental status examinations and no history of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, which
contrasted against Plaintiff’s alleged limitations stemming from his mental impairments.
(R. 28-29). In sum, Plaintiff’s argument on this point fails.
For these reasons, the ALJ’s findings and conclusions are supported by substantial
evidence. Therefore, the Court affirms the findings of the Commissioner.
3