if supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner's decision Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 2025. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g
How later courts described this case
- if supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner's decision Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 2025. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
Cara Brodman, ) CASE NO. 3:24:CV-0139
)
Plaintiff ) □
) RICHARD A. LANZILLO
vs. ) CHIEF UNITED STATES
) MAGISTRATE JUDGE
)
Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the ) IN RE: ECF NOS. 10, 14
Social Security Administration, )
ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR
) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant )
7 ye
AND NOW, this / day of uv / 7 , 2025, upon consideration of the parties’
cross-motions for summary judgmenf 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 also denying Plaintiff's
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, 587 U.S. 97 (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
Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 2025. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Bisignano is substituted for then Acting Commissioner
Leland Dudek as the defendant in this suit. See, e.g., Skolny v. Bisignano, 2025 WL 1462570, at *6 (M.D. Pa. May
21, 2025).
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)).
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 10) is DENIED and that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 14) is
GRANTED.” Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, judgment is hereby entered
against the Plaintiff and in favor of the Commissioner.
The Clerk of this Court is directed to mark this case “Closed” on the Court’s docket.
B T:
<d a
RICHARD A. LANZILLO
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
? The parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the United States Magistrate Judge under the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).