SHAFFER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
1:24-cv-06904
D.N.J.May 19, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Robin S., age 51 at alleged onset, filed for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits, citing PTSD, adjustment disorder, chronic back injury, and left eye blindness.
- Applications denied first by the agency and then by an ALJ after a hearing; Appeals Council affirmed; Plaintiff sought judicial review.
- Plaintiff’s records showed a history of lumbar spine issues, mental health diagnoses (PTSD, anxiety/depression), and left eye vision impairment, but also daily activity such as walking his dog and running for school board.
- Medical opinions conflicted: Dr. Baretto and Dr. Umpierre documented moderate-to-severe functional limitations, but much of Plaintiff's care records described stable or improving symptoms.
- ALJ ultimately found Plaintiff able to do past work as a telegraph service rater, as well as other jobs, and denied benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step Two Severity of Impairments | ALJ erred by not designating vision/kidney/anxiety as severe; failed to consider in RFC | ALJ properly found these non-severe or addressed them in RFC | ALJ's handling supported by substantial evidence; any omission was harmless |
| Weight of Medical Opinions | ALJ's rationale for discounting Drs. Baretto/Umpierre was cursory and ignored time-off-task/absenteeism | ALJ cited inconsistency between severe limitations and daily activity/medical record | ALJ adequately explained and supported findings; no reversible error |
| Past Relevant Work (Step 4) | Plaintiff could not perform past work due to reasoning level/social/pace restrictions inconsistent with RFC | No preserved objection; VE testimony consistent with DOT and addressed RFC specifically | No conflict; VE testimony was substantial evidence; Plaintiff failed burden |
| Direct Award of Benefits | Full record shows disability, merits calculated award | Agency findings on disability supported by substantial evidence | Direct award moot; ALJ's decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Knepp v. Apfel,204 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2000) (plenary review of ALJ legal conclusions; deferential review of factual findings)
- Sykes v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2000) (substantial evidence standard in disability review)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) ("substantial evidence" means more than a scintilla; reasonable mind would accept)
- Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 804 F.2d 808 (3d Cir. 1986) (court cannot set aside ALJ's findings supported by substantial evidence even if it would decide differently)
- Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34 (3d Cir. 2001) (review binds court to ALJ's supported findings)
- Kent v. Schweiker, 710 F.2d 110 (3d Cir. 1983) (substantial evidence review is qualitative, not automatic)
- Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2011) (ALJ, not doctor, makes ultimate RFC/disability finding)