IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEAN RODRIGUEZ : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

JO ANNE B. BARNHART :

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY :

ADMINISTRATION : NO. 04-4755

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Fullam, Sr. J. January 26, 2006

In this Social Security disability case, the Chief

Magistrate Judge has issued a report recommending that the Court

grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and deny

Plaintiff’s, effectively affirming the decision of the

Administrative Law Judge to deny benefits. After careful

consideration of the record, the objections to the Report and

Recommendation, and the oral arguments of counsel, I am satisfied

that the ALJ’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence.

The ALJ concluded that although Plaintiff suffers from

“impairments which cause significant vocationally relevant

limitations,” R. 18, the impairments are not severe enough to

prevent Plaintiff from working. The record supports this

conclusion. Although there is some conflicting evidence as to

the severity of Plaintiff’s mental impairments, a number of

reports, particularly the more recent ones, place Plaintiff at a

level of “moderate” rather than “marked” impairment, providing

Case 2:04-cv-04755-JF Document 24 Filed 01/26/06 Page 1 of 4
2

substantial evidence for the ALJ’s conclusion. The ALJ also

appropriately considered the opinion of a non-treating, nonexamining physician, Dr. Friel, who testified that Plaintiff had

mild to moderate limitations in activities of daily living. As

the appeal decision noted, the ALJ found that Dr. Friel’s

testimony was supported by the opinion of the State agency

psychological consultant, the narrative report of the

psychological consultative examiner, and the previous treating

psychiatrist. R. 19. Even if, as Plaintiff argues, Dr. Friel

did not review Plaintiff’s complete records, the additional

material presents conflicting evidence of Plaintiff’s condition. 

Furthermore, it appears that the ALJ had all of the records even

if Dr. Friel did not. 

The ALJ also acted within reason in rejecting the opinion of

Dr. Olinga because that individual is not a physician, a

psychiatrist, or a psychologist, but instead has an Ed.D (doctor

of education) degree. Id. The ALJ did not reject Dr. Olinga’s

opinion for no reason or for the wrong reason, Morales v. Apfel,

225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000), but because the ALJ found that

Dr. Olinga was not qualified and that his records did not support

a finding of marked or severe impairment. 

Plaintiff’s objections to the hypotheticals presented to the

vocational expert reflect disagreement with the ALJ’s conclusions

regarding the level of impairment, which already have been

Case 2:04-cv-04755-JF Document 24 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 4
3

discussed. Plaintiff finally argues that there was a conflict

between the testimony of the vocational expert and the Dictionary

of Occupational Titles (“DOT”). The vocational expert testified

that he eliminated jobs that required contact with the public, R.

93. Only one of the six jobs identified by the vocational expert

arguably requires contact with the public (Clerical Office

Helper); there were jobs identified to support the . After

careful review of the record, the objections to the Report and

Recommendation, and the oral arguments of counsel ALJ’s

conclusion that work existed in the local and national economy

that Plaintiff could perform.

An order follows.

Case 2:04-cv-04755-JF Document 24 Filed 01/26/06 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEAN RODRIGUEZ : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 :

JO ANNE B. BARNHART :

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY :

ADMINISTRATION : NO. 04-4755

 AND NOW, this 26th day of January 2006, upon consideration

of the parties’ cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, and after

review of the Report and Recommendation of M. Faith Angell, Chief

United States Magistrate Judge, the objections to the Report and

Recommendation, and the oral arguments of counsel, and for the

reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby

ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

3. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John P. Fullam 

John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

Case 2:04-cv-04755-JF Document 24 Filed 01/26/06 Page 4 of 4