Ficca v. Astrue

901 F. Supp. 2d 533, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141085, 2012 WL 4504526
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 28, 2012
DocketNo. 4:11-CV-1521
StatusPublished
Cited by476 cases

This text of 901 F. Supp. 2d 533 (Ficca v. Astrue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ficca v. Astrue, 901 F. Supp. 2d 533, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141085, 2012 WL 4504526 (M.D. Pa. 2012).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

WILLIAM J. NEALON, District Judge.

Background

The above-captioned action is one seeking review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff Christopher Ficca’s claim for social security disability insurance benefits.

Ficca protectively filed an application for disability insurance benefits in March, 2009, alleging disability since September 1, 2005. (Tr. 72, 128-29). He alleged disability due to status post C6-C7 fusion, right shoulder rotator cuff tendinitis/ partial tear, degenerative disc disease, panic disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). (Doc. 1, ¶ 7), (Tr. 14-15).

On July 8, 2009, the Bureau of Disability Determination denied Ficca’s application. (Tr. 102-06). On September 24, 2009, Ficca requested a hearing before an administrative law judge. (Tr. 109-10). A hearing was held on August 2, 2010, before administrative law judge Ronald Sweeda. (Tr. 65-93). On September 21, 2010, the administrative law judge issued a decision denying Ficca’s application. (Tr. 9-25). Ficca then requested that the Appeals Council review the administrative law judge’s decision. (Tr. 7). On June 21, 2011, the Appeals Council denied Ficca’s request for review. (Tr. 1-5). Thus, the administrative law judge’s decision stood as the final decision of the Commissioner.

Ficca then filed a complaint in this Court on August 16, 2011. (Doc. 1). Supporting and opposing briefs were submitted and the appeal is now ripe for disposition. (Docs. 8, 9). For the reasons set forth below, the decision of the Commissioner denying Ficca’s application for disability insurance benefits will be affirmed.

Disability insurance benefits are paid to an individual if that individual is disabled and “insured,” that is, the individual has worked long enough and paid social security taxes. The last date that a claimant meets the requirements of being insured is commonly referred to as the “date last insured.” Ficca meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2010. (Tr. 14).

Ficca was born on June 21, 1965, and at all times relevant to this matter was considered a “[y]ounger person”1 whose age [536]*536does not seriously affect his ability to adjust to other work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(c); (Tr. 23, 71). Ficca has a college degree. (Tr. 72). He has past relevant work experience as a tax office supervisor and an owner of a bowling alley with bookkeeping duties. (Tr. 14, 88). Ficca worked after his alleged onset date; however, the ALJ determined that such work did not amount to substantial gainful activity. (Tr. 72). Ficca stated that he cannot work due to pain in his neck that shoots down to his arm causing numbness, headaches, weakness in his right side, and he also suffers from mental problems. (Tr. 73).

Standard of Review

When considering a social security appeal, the court has plenary review of all legal issues decided by the Commissioner. See Poulos v. Commissioner of Social Security, 474 F.3d 88, 91 (3d Cir.2007); Schaudeck v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 181 F.3d 429, 431 (3d Cir.1999); Krysztoforski v. Chater, 55 F.3d 857, 858 (3d Cir.1995). However, the court’s review of the Commissioner’s findings of fact pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is to determine whether those findings are supported by “substantial evidence.” Id.; Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058, 1064 (3d Cir.1993); Brown v. Bowen, 845 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir.1988). Factual findings which are supported by substantial evidence must be upheld. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 38 (3d Cir.2001) (“Where the ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, we are bound by those findings, even if we would have decided the factual inquiry differently.”); Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir.1981) (“Findings of fact by the Secretary must be accepted as conclusive by a reviewing court if supported by substantial evidence.”); Keefe v. Shalala, 71 F.3d 1060, 1062 (2d Cir.1995); Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir.2001); Martin v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 1520, 1529 & 1529 n. 11 (11th Cir.1990).

Substantial evidence “does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence, but ‘rather such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate. to support a conclusion.’ ” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)); Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 529 F.3d 198, 200 (3d Cir.2008); Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir.1999). Substantial evidence has been described as more than a mere scintilla of evidence but less than a preponderance. Broiun, 845 F.2d at 1213. In an adequately developed factual record, substantial evidence may be “something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607, 620, 86 S.Ct. 1018,16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966).

Substantial evidence exists only “in relationship to all the other evidence in the record,” Cotter, 642 F.2d at 706, and “must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.” Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). A single piece of evidence is not substantial evidence if the Commissioner ignores countervailing evidence or fails to resolve a conflict created by the evidence. Mason, 994 F.2d at 1064.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Utter v. Kijakazi
M.D. Pennsylvania, 2025
Vargas v. Kijakazi
M.D. Pennsylvania, 2025
Gillette v. O'Malley
M.D. Pennsylvania, 2025
Borys v. Kijakazi
M.D. Pennsylvania, 2025
Cruz v. O'Malley
M.D. Pennsylvania, 2025

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
901 F. Supp. 2d 533, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141085, 2012 WL 4504526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ficca-v-astrue-pamd-2012.