SILVA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 2:16-cv-05040

Silva applied for disability insurance benefits alleging onset April 1, 2008; application denied by ALJ Olarsch after hearing and Appeals Council denied review, so ALJ decision became final.
Medical record: lumbar MRI (Sept 2011) and ER CT (June 2012) showed no significant abnormalities; cervical facet injections produced ~95% pain relief per treating physician Dr. Kang.
Treating records include inconsistent functional opinions from Dr. Kang (one report showing extreme limitations, another days later showing no limits in sitting/standing/walking) and a 2014 statement from Dr. Yoo asserting inability to work.
Psychological evidence: history of anxiety/panic and medications, March 2013 consult by Dr. Yalkowsky showed intact cognitive/social skills though poor concentration; state psychological reviewer found some marked limits on detailed instructions but many nonsevere functional abilities.
At hearing VE testified that with the ALJ’s assessed RFC (light work with specific physical and non‑exertional limits, up to 10% off‑task, and one unanticipated absence/month) Silva could perform three occupations available in significant numbers; more severe absenteeism/off‑task rates would preclude work.

Issue	Silva's Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether ALJ’s denial is supported by substantial evidence	Silva argued ALJ improperly discounted disabling pain and gave insufficient reasons for RFC	Commissioner argued ALJ reasonably weighed objective medical evidence and credibility, and substantial evidence supports findings	Court held ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial credible evidence and affirmed denial
Proper evaluation of treating source opinions (Dr. Kang, Dr. Yoo)	Silva argued ALJ erred in rejecting treating opinions showing extreme limitations	Commissioner argued ALJ permissibly gave little weight to inconsistent/extreme opinions and substantial weight to the more consistent report	Court held ALJ permissibly discounted inconsistent/extreme opinions and relied on supported findings
Whether impairments meet or equal Listings (step three)	Silva contended ALJ failed to consider impairments in combination and meet Listing criteria	Commissioner argued objective records do not satisfy Listing elements and ALJ considered impairments individually and combined	Court held impairments did not meet or equal Listings and ALJ adequately considered combinations
Reliance on VE testimony to satisfy step five burden	Silva implied VE testimony did not establish availability given RFC uncertainties	Commissioner relied on VE identifying significant-number jobs consistent with DOT	Court held VE testimony supported step five conclusion that jobs existed in national economy

Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78 (3d Cir. 2000) (standards for reviewing ALJ legal questions)
Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 1999) (substantial evidence standard for ALJ factual findings)
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (definition of substantial evidence)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (substantial evidence and medical testimony)
Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (agency findings may be supported even if record allows contrary inferences)
Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501 (ALJ need not use particular language so long as record permits meaningful review)
Kent v. Schweiker, 710 F.2d 110 (ALJ must resolve conflicts in evidence)
Hargenrader v. Califano, 575 F.2d 434 (explain acceptance/rejection of evidence)
Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d 403 (remand appropriate when relevant probative evidence not weighed)
Podedworny v. Harris, 745 F.2d 210 (benefits awarded only after full development of record and substantial evidence)
Bailey v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 354 F. App’x 613 (definition of substantial evidence in Social Security context)
Cruz v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 244 F. App’x 475 (ALJ must explain which evidence accepted or rejected)
Scott v. Astrue, 297 F. App’x 126 (deference to ALJ findings)