# MOE v. O'MALLEY

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · March 31, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10836181

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 31, 2025
- **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/10836181

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the court has plenary review of all legal issues and reviews the findings of fact of the ALJ to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence
- stating that “the ALJ did not err by considering Miller's ability to maintain part-time employment as one factor relevant to the determination of whether he was disabled”

## Opinion text

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

JANE MOE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-1468
)
LELAND DUDEK,1 )
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, )
)
Defendant. )

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2025, upon consideration of the parties’
cross-motions for summary judgment,2 the Court, upon review of the Commissioner of Social
Security’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) 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

1 Leland Dudek is substituted as the defendant in this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 25(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

2 Per Plaintiff’s response (Doc. No. 69) to the Hon. Alan Bloch’s July 24, 2024 Order
(Doc. No. 68), the Court is construing Plaintiff’s Miscellaneous Motion for Her Opening Brief
(Doc. No. 55) and Plaintiff’s Opening Brief (Doc. No. 56), along with the exhibits thereto, as
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this matter.
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)).3

3 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this case, and pro se pleadings are held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 165 F.3d 244, 247 (3d Cir. 1999). As such, the
Court has carefully reviewed and considered all of Plaintiff’s filings in this case and the issues she
has raised therein. It has also liberally construed these documents so as to give Plaintiff’s
arguments the broadest reasonable reading possible. Nonetheless, while Plaintiff has clearly put a
great deal of work into her case and has done a credible, good-faith job of explaining her position,
the Court will affirm the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).

Plaintiff raises three broad categories of arguments: (1) that the ALJ’s decision is not
consistent with the law and/or supported by substantial evidence; (2) that the ALJ, the Appeals
Council, and other SSA personnel were biased against her and that she was therefore denied due
process; and (3) that a remand is warranted based on new evidence not before the ALJ. For the
reasons set forth herein, the Court finds no merit as to any of these arguments.

In regard to the first argument, it is important to understand the limited scope of the
Court’s authority in this matter. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) permits a district court to review a final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. However, judicial review is based solely on
the pleadings and the transcript of the record, and the scope of the Court’s review is limited to
determining whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether the
record, as a whole, contains substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s findings of fact.
See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589, 592 (3d Cir. 2001); Schaudeck v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 181 F.3d 429, 431 (3d Cir. 1999) (stating that the court has plenary
review of all legal issues and reviews the findings of fact of the ALJ to determine whether they
are supported by substantial evidence). Therefore, the Court here is limited to reviewing the
record before it to assure itself that it adequately supports the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff was
not disabled during the relevant time period. Evidence that was not before the ALJ cannot be
considered by a district court in its determination of whether or not the ALJ’s decision was
supported by substantial evidence. See Matthews, 239 F.3d at 594; Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 360 (3d Cir. 2011).

The Court first notes that Plaintiff’s claims that the ALJ did not apply the proper legal
standards are without merit. Plaintiff may disagree with the decisions the ALJ made, but she
cannot establish that he did not follow the appropriate regulations. The ALJ, in formulating
Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and in otherwise considering whether she was
disabled, considered the objective medical evidence, including medical imagining date, clinical
findings, and mental status examination findings; the history and efficacy of Plaintiff’s
treatment; and her activities of daily living, including her education and part-time employment.
These were all appropriate factors; indeed, they are part of what an ALJ is required to consider.
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), (3); Russo v. Astrue, 421 Fed. Appx. 184, 188-89 (3d Cir. 2011);
SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *5 (S.S.A. 2016); Miller v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 524 Fed.
Appx. 191, 194 (6th Cir. 2013) (stating that “the ALJ did not err by considering Miller's ability
to maintain part-time employment as one factor relevant to the determination of whether he was
disabled”); Mack v. Colvin, No. CV 15-688, 2016 WL 6039047, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2016)
(holding that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's part-time work). Again, Plaintiff may
disagree with the conclusions drawn by the ALJ from this evidence, but on this record she cannot
successfully argue that it was a mistake of law to consider it.

The ALJ also considered and relied upon several medical expert opinions and did so
pursuant to and consistent with the proper and applicable regulations. Because Plaintiff’s claim
was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ properly applied the older version of the regulations in
evaluating the medical opinion evidence, specifically 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. As such, he assigned
“weight” to the opinions rather than determining their “persuasiveness,” as required under the
language of the regulations applicable to newer cases. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a). See also
82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01, at 5853 (Jan. 18, 2017). His analysis was consistent with and considered
the factors set forth in Section 1527, including examining relationship, supportability, and
consistency. Moreover, while Plaintiff points out that some of the opinions were rendered long
before the record was complete, and therefore without the benefit of much of the later developed
evidence, the fact that the state reviewing agents’ opinions were rendered before other evidence
became available does not mean the ALJ was prohibited from giving them significant weight.
See Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361 (“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.”). And importantly, the
ALJ himself was aware of this later evidence and considered it in making his determinations.

Plaintiff further suggests that an error in law was made in that the ALJ gave equal weight
to the opinion of Stephen Pacella, Ph.D., the consultative examiner (R. 2467-75), and Kerry
Brace, Psy.D., the state agency psychological consultant (R. 327-33) without reconciling the
differences between the opinions. (Doc. No. 56, pp. 1-10). Plaintiff is correct, of course, that the
ALJ assigned “significant weight” to each of these opinions. (R. 156). However, whatever
differences existed between the opinions of Dr. Pacella and Dr. Brace were resolved in Plaintiff’s
favor. For instance, Dr. Pacella opined that Plaintiff was markedly limited in all aspects of her
ability to interact socially (R. 2474), while Dr. Brace opined that Plaintiff had only moderate
limitations in that regard (although Dr. Brace did find her markedly limited in her ability to
interact appropriately with the general public). (R. 328, 332). Nonetheless, although the ALJ did
afford significant weight to each opinion, he ultimately found that Plaintiff was markedly limited
in her ability to interact with others (R. 151), implicitly agreeing with the more limiting opinion
of Dr. Pacella. The ALJ also included a number of significant restrictions in regard to Plaintiff’s
social functioning in the RFC, including that she could work in proximity to co-workers, but
could have only occasional interaction with them and no tandem work and that she was limited
to incidental or cursory contact with the public and to positions working with things rather than
people. He also accounted for Dr. Pacella’s opinion that Plaintiff was markedly limited in her
ability to respond appropriately to usual work settings and to changes in a routine work setting
by restricting her to a low stress workplace with few decisions, judgments, or changes in routine
work setting. (R. 153).
Plaintiff suggests that Dr. Pacella’s opinion can also be read to provide that she is markedly
limited in her ability to adapt or manage herself (Doc. No. 56, pp. 9-10), which – along with
interacting with others – is one of the four considerations under Section B of Listings 12.06, 12.13,
and 12.15, 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, at Step Three of the sequential analysis. She
asserts that this would provide the second marked limitation needed to satisfy the listings, which
would direct a finding of disability. She contends that this “inconsistency” between the opinions of
Dr. Pacella and Dr. Brace therefore had to be addressed by the ALJ and that it was legal error for
him to fail to do so. A plain reading of Dr. Pacella’s opinion, though, dispels this notion. Dr.
Pacella, unlike Dr. Brace, did not purport to specifically determine whether Plaintiff’s mental
conditions satisfied the B criteria of Listings 12.06, 12.13, and 12.15. Rather, the form attached to
his assessment setting forth the degree of Plaintiff’s limitations was broken into several sections.
The first contained his opinions as to capabilities correlating with the ability to understand,
remember, and apply information, and Dr. Pacella’s opinions as to Plaintiff’s level of functioning
as to these capabilities ranged from no limitation to mild to moderate limitation. (R. 2473). In
turn, the ALJ found her to have a mild limitation in this area of functioning in regarding to Listings
12.06, 12.13, and 12.15 at Step Three. The next section of Dr. Pacella’s form contained activities
correlating with Plaintiff’s ability to interact with others. As noted, Dr. Pacella found Plaintiff to
have marked limitation in all such areas, and the ALJ agreed and found Plaintiff to have marked
limitation in this area of functioning at Step Three. (R. 151, 2474). Accordingly, there are no clear
inconsistencies in regard to these two sections.

It is the third section of the form that correlated with the final two Part B criteria:
adapting and managing oneself and concentrating, persisting, and maintaining pace. Although
Dr. Patella clearly marked that these capabilities were impacted by Plaintiff’s impairments, he
did not opine as to any specific degree of limitation, i.e., mild, moderate, marked, or extreme.
(R. 2474). The ALJ, consistent with Dr. Brace, found that Plaintiff had a moderate limitation in
these areas. (R. 151-52, 328). Given the vague and general nature of Dr. Pacella’s opinion on
this point, the ALJ’s finding was in no way inconsistent with Dr. Pacella’s assessment. Indeed,
there really is nothing in Dr. Pacella’s opinion that is inconsistent with the ALJ’s findings, and to
the extent there are any inconsistencies with Dr. Brace’s opinion, the ALJ’s findings were more
restrictive. In fact, there were no medical opinions expressly suggesting more restrictive
limitations than those found by the ALJ. As such, the Court finds that the ALJ adequately
considered these opinions to which he assigned “equal” weight.

Plaintiff’s argument that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s findings is
essentially premised on her own assessment of the record facts. Plaintiff, in a fairly
comprehensive manner, sets forth her own explanation of what the evidence shows and invites
the Court to agree with her. 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). As
noted, Plaintiff highlights evidence that she argues leads to a contrary conclusion, but “[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). Here, substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s determinations, as he himself discussed at length, especially in light of the
United States Supreme Court’s reminder that the threshold for meeting the substantial evidence
standard “is not high.” Biestek, 139 S. Ct. at 1154.

Plaintiff is correct on one point – the ALJ potentially erred in finding that she could
perform the job of order caller as part of his findings that she could perform work that exists in
significant numbers in the national economy. That position has an identification number
pursuant to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“DOT”) of 209.667-014. The companion
document to the DOT – the Selected Characteristics of Occupations Defined in the Revised
Dictionary of Occupational Titles (“SCO”) – indicates that this job requires frequent talking,
whereas Plaintiff’s RFC limited her to “only occasional verbal communication via such methods
as phone or face to face conversation.” (R. 152). This would appear to create a potential
unresolved conflict between the requirements of the job as set forth in the DOT and SCO and
Plaintiff’s functional capacity. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, even assuming the ALJ erred in this
way, remand is not warranted.

The position of order caller requires frequent talking, but the other two jobs the ALJ
found Plaintiff able to perform – marker (DOT No. 209.587-034) and addresser (209.587-010) –
do not generally require any talking per the SCO. Those two jobs (which comprise 60,000 jobs
nationally) would therefore remain available to Plaintiff. (R. 158). While the Commissioner
bears the burden of demonstrating that the claimant can perform jobs existing in the national
economy at the fifth step of the sequential analysis, see Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607, 616 (3d
Cir. 2014), this burden is satisfied if the ALJ identifies at least one occupation with a significant
number of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform. See Wilkinson v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 558 Fed. Appx. 254, 256 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1566(b),
416.966(b)). Therefore, a finding that Plaintiff could perform one of the 60,000 marker and/or
addresser jobs in the national economy is sufficient to satisfy the Commissioner’s burden at Step
Five, even without consideration of the order caller position.

The second aspect of Plaintiff’s position is that the ALJ, the Appeals Council, and other
SSA personnel were biased against her and that she was therefore denied due process. At the
outset, the Court notes that Plaintiff cannot bring such claims, as she asserts (Doc. No. 55, pp.
12-13), pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). First, her
Complaint does not raise an action pursuant to Bivens nor she does she plead the requisite
elements for such an action. More importantly, however, the Supreme Court has made it clear
that “the improper denial of Social Security disability benefits, allegedly resulting from
violations of due process by government officials who administered the federal Social Security
program,” cannot give rise to a Bivens action. Schweiker v. Chilicky, 487 U.S. 412, 414 (1988).
Indeed, sovereign immunity and the language of 405(h) preclude such constitutional claims in
the context of an appeal under Section 405(g). See N'Jai v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm'r, No. CV
18-1616, 2019 WL 652842, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2019) (citing Agcaoili v. Thayer, 365 Fed.
Appx. 372, 374–75 (3d Cir. 2010); Cassell v. The Social Security ADM, 677 Fed. Appx. 98, 99
(3d Cir. 2017)).
Nonetheless, courts have long recognized that “due process requires that any hearing
afforded [a Social Security disability] claimant be full and fair.” Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d
900, 902 (3d Cir.1995). This standard is violated where the ALJ displays a bias or animus
against a claimant or a claimant is deprived of the opportunity to present evidence. See id. at
902–03. See also Bordes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 235 Fed. Appx. 853, 857-58 (3d Cir. 2007).
The burden of demonstrating a violation of due process rests with the party raising the objection,
and such party “must show that the behavior of the ALJ was ‘so extreme as to display clear
inability to render fair judgment.’” Roberson v. Colvin, Civ. No. 13-1183, 2014 WL 4258306, at
*4 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2014) (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551 (1994)). This
standard is a very difficult one to meet; as Plaintiff recognizes, the Court presumes “that the
hearing officers are...unbiased.” Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 195 (1982). “That
presumption is overcome only if it is shown that the ALJ displayed ‘deep-seated and unequivocal
antagonism’ that is ‘so extreme’ that fair judgment is impossible.” Jamar v. Colvin, No. CV 15-
212-E, 2016 WL 4875292, at *1 n.1 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 14, 2016) (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 551,
556). The mere fact that an ALJ displays “impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, or even anger
does not establish bias.” Ball v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. CV 18-159-E, 2019 WL 4722492, at
*1 n.1 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 2019) (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555-56).

In addition, in the ordinary course, the claimant “must bring any objections to the
attention of the ALJ, and the ALJ shall decide whether to continue the hearing or withdraw.”
Ventura, 55 F.3d at 902. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.940. Thus, Plaintiff should have, at the
administrative hearing, “alleged that the ALJ was prejudiced and requested that he disqualify
himself.” Ventura, 55 F.3d at 902. The Court is cognizant that Plaintiff has proceeded pro se at
all times relevant and therefore will not find her to have waived a bias claim by failing to raise it
in the manner specified in the regulations. Regardless, the Court finds that no valid bias claim
exists here.

Part of the basis for Plaintiff’s claim of bias is that the ALJ acted aggressively toward
her, shook his head and threw up his hands, and looked concerned and glared at her during the
administrative hearing on February 28, 2019. (Doc. No. 55, pp. 2-3 n.3). The transcript contains
no evidence of any such behavior (R. 269-97), which Plaintiff asserts was due to the fact that the
bias was “visible not audible.” (Doc. No. 55, p. 3 n.3). However, even crediting Plaintiff’s
interpretation of the events, as noted above, an ALJ’s “impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, or
even anger does not establish bias.” Ball, 2019 WL 4722492, at *1 n.1. Therefore, actions,
particularly ones that are prone to a subjective understanding, that arguably demonstrate
frustration by the ALJ are not sufficient to establish bias. Moreover, the transcript contains no
evidence that Plaintiff interpreted any actions by the ALJ as aggressive in the moment. As
noted, the Court is not finding that Plaintiff’s failure to raise bias at the hearing waived her right
to raise it now; however, her own unremarkable reactions to the ALJ’s supposedly egregious
conduct and her failure to make any note of such behavior on the record is part of the complete
lack of any evidence from the transcript demonstrating the type of extreme unequivocal
antagonism that is needed to show bias. Therefore, even if the Court were to fully credit
Plaintiff’s account of the behavior at the hearing, at best it would show a possibly ornery ALJ; it
would not provide the type of evidence needed to show that the ALJ was biased against her.
The second basis for Plaintiff’s claim of bias is that the record contains errors, which she
characterizes as the “spoliation” of evidence. She does point to a few pages, out of a particularly
long administrative record, containing errors in omitting evidence that had been submitted. She
points, for example, to a place where a couple pages of her brief to the Appeals Council were
repeated, replacing the pages that properly should have been there. (Doc. No. 56-2, Ex. 2; R.
1187). She also identifies a 2-page correspondence attaching a general medical article on “The
exacerbating effect of insulin-induced hypoglycemia on spontaneous peripheral neuropathy in
aged B6C3F1 mice” (Id., Ex. 1), and a 4-page faxed surgical pathology report dated August 9,
2019 (Id., Ex. 3) that the SSA appears to have received but not included in her file. (Doc. No.
55, pp. 4- 6). While such errors certainly may have (and appear likely to have) occurred, a few
errors in copying documents over the course of preparing a transcript that is nearly 2,500 pages
long certainly does not show extreme unequivocal antagonism on the part of any SSA personnel.
Mere error does not establish bias. See Chantal v. Berryhill, No. 2:16-cv-575, 2018 WL 585538,
at *11 (D. Me. Jan. 29, 2018). Plaintiff herself acknowledges that there was nothing facially
noteworthy about the omitted material, and none contains pertinent information not conveyed
elsewhere in the record in some form. Compiling an administrative transcript of this size is no
simple process even when a claimant has a lawyer; given Plaintiff’s decision to represent herself,
evidence of a few imperfections in this process is not unreasonable. At the very least, it certainly
is not, without significantly more, sufficient to overcome the strong presumption against bias.

Plaintiff does, of course, also contend that an SSA employee implied that there were as
many as 500 pages missing from her transcript. (Doc. No. 55, p. 7-9). However, this entire
claim appears to be based on a conversation regarding a different application for benefits
Plaintiff filed after bringing this case. The language used during that conversation was vague
and did not demonstrate any purposeful behavior on the part of the SSA to remove evidence
from Plaintiff’s administrative record. Moreover, there is no evidence, and indeed, Plaintiff does
not even speculate, as to what evidence was contained in those 500 allegedly missing pages.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations of dirty looks, a couple of pages missing from a very large
transcript, and a vague suggestion that there may be more information missing simply does not
and cannot establish bias on behalf of the ALJ or any other SSA employee.

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that this case should be remanded for consideration of the vast
amount of evidence not presented to the ALJ but presented to the Appeals Council. As the Court
discussed above, it cannot consider evidence that was not before the ALJ in its determination of
whether or not the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. See Matthews, 239
F.3d at 594; Chandler, 667 F.3d at 360. Accordingly, the Court cannot rely on any records that
were not part of the administrative record upon which the ALJ based his decision in making its
determination here, even if those documents were submitted to the Appeals Council. It can,
though, consider whether this new evidence demonstrates the need for the case to be remanded
under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides, in relevant part:

[The court] may at any time order additional evidence to be taken
before the Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a
showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there
is good cause for failure to incorporate such evidence into the
record in a prior proceeding.

To remand a case based on new evidence which was not before the ALJ, the Court must
determine that the following criteria have been met: First, the evidence must be new and not
merely cumulative of what is in the record. Second, the evidence must be material. This means
that it must be relevant and probative, and there must be a reasonable possibility that the new
evidence would have changed the outcome of the determination. Third, the plaintiff must
demonstrate good cause for not having incorporated the new evidence into the administrative
record. See Matthews, 239 F.3d at 594; Szubak v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 745
F.2d 831, 833 (3d Cir. 1984). Plaintiff cannot meet this burden.

The Court will assume for these purposes that all of the evidence submitted by Plaintiff to
the Appeals Council is “new” in the sense that it is not merely cumulative of what is already in
an already vast record and that Plaintiff had good cause for not incorporating the evidence into
the administrative record prior to the ALJ’s decision on May 20, 2019. Nonetheless, none of it is
material, and remand is therefore unwarranted. “An implicit materiality requirement is that the
new evidence relate to the time period for which benefits were denied, and that it not concern
evidence of a later-acquired disability or of the subsequent deterioration of [a] previously non-
disabling condition.” Szubak, 745 F.2d at 833; see also Rainey v. Astrue, Civ. No. 11-125-E,
2012 WL 3779167, at *8 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2012). Plaintiff acknowledges that much of the
evidence submitted to the Appeals Council came into existence after the ALJ’s decision but
argues that it all pertains to conditions that were present before May 20, 2019. This may be so,
but it is not enough to support a sentence six remand based on new evidence.

The issue is not whether Plaintiff had been or could have been diagnosed with additional
conditions prior to May 20, 2019, but what functional limitations the conditions caused at that
time. See Walker v. Barnhart, 172 Fed. Appx. 423, 426 (3d Cir. 2006). The records submitted
by Plaintiff may relate to conditions that existed during the relevant time period, but none are
probative as to Plaintiff’s functional limitations during that period. For instance, Plaintiff
submits evidence that she was diagnosed with papillary thyroid carcinoma in 2020, but that the
evidence shows that the condition existed at least as far back as April of 2019. However, even in
2020, Plaintiff was asymptomatic, and her prognosis was excellent. (R. 15, 35). Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s cancer may certainly impact a finding as to whether she is disabled going forward, but
the evidence does not support that the condition caused functional limitations prior to May 20,
2019. The same is true for the evidence involving less serious medical conditions submitted to
the Appeals Council. As such, there is not a reasonable possibility that the evidence would have
changed the outcome of the ALJ’s determination.

In sum, the Court finds that the ALJ applied the proper legal standards and that
substantial evidence supports his findings. It further finds that there is insufficient evidence to
establish bias or denial of due process. Finally, it finds that none of the new evidence presented
by Plaintiff warrants a sentence six remand. The Court will therefore affirm.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. Nos. 55, 56) is DENIED and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 60) is GRANTED as set forth herein.

s/Mark R. Hornak
United States District Judge

ecf: Counsel of record

cc: Jane Moe
P.O. Box 201
Homestead, PA 15120

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10836181. Public record. Not legal advice.