901 F. Supp. 2d 533
M.D. Pa.2012Background
- Ficca sought review of the Commissioner’s denial of his disability insurance benefits.
- The insured period extends through December 31, 2010.
- Ficca alleges disability beginning September 1, 2005 due to cervical spine fusion, shoulder issues, degenerative disc disease, panic disorder, and ADHD.
- An ALJ denied benefits on September 21, 2010; the Appeals Council denied review on June 21, 2011.
- Ficca protectively filed in March 2009; the district court reviews for substantial evidence upon the record.
- Ficca’s past work included tax office supervision and bowling alley ownership with bookkeeping duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ficca’s impairments meet or equal Listing 1.04A | Ficca contends 1.04A is met by foraminal stenosis/nerve compression. | ALJ reviewed 1.00 et seq. and found no listing-level severity. | No listing-level impairment; substantial evidence supports denial. |
| Whether the RFC accommodates Ficca’s limitations | RFC ignores concentration, back/neck pain, and arm weakness. | RFC reflects medically supported limitations; substantial evidence supports it. | RFC supported; Ficca can perform reduced-sedentary work. |
| Whether the ALJ properly evaluated Ficca’s credibility | Ficca’s testimony about pain and disability should be fully credited. | ALJ credibly found inconsistent statements and relied on medical evidence. | ALJ credibility finding upheld; record supports discounting broader claims. |
| Whether post-hearing evidence warrants remand under sentence six | New evidence post-hearing shows ongoing impairment. | Evidence not material; would not change the outcome. | Evidence not material; no remand under sentence six. |
Key Cases Cited
- Poulos v. Commissioner of Social Security, 474 F.3d 88 (3d Cir.2007) (plenary review of legal issues; substantial evidence standard governs facts)
- Schaudeck v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 181 F.3d 429 (3d Cir.1999) (standard for substantial evidence review explained)
- Kryzstoforski v. Chater, 55 F.3d 857 (3d Cir.1995) (substantial evidence requires holistic review of record)
- Matthews v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 589 (3d Cir.2001) (new evidence not material unless meeting sentence 6 criteria)
- Szubak v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 745 F.2d 831 (3d Cir.1984) (materiality and good cause for post hoc evidence)