1

 Plaintiff has raised two objections to Magistrate Judge Rice’s very comprehensive and

detailed Report and Recommendation, which recommended that the court grant defendant’s motion

for summary judgment and deny plaintiff’s. First, plaintiff contends that there was not substantial

evidence to support the finding of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that plaintiff’s testimony

at the January 28, 2004 hearing was not credible. In addition, plaintiff asserts that the ALJ did not

properly consider the testimony of the vocational expert (“VE”), who testified at the hearing that

“based on the Plaintiff’s limitations, the Plaintiff was unemployable.” Objections at 1.

Credibility determinations are reserved for the ALJ, but the ALJ must also provide

reasoning for discrediting testimony. Van Horn v. Schweiker, 717 F.2d 871, 873 (3d Cir. 1983). 

Here, the ALJ did give reasoning for finding that plaintiff’s “allegations as to limitations and

inability to work are not entirely credible.” R. 15. The ALJ stated explicitly in his decision that

“the allegations are not supported by the objective findings and degree of treatment,” and he then

proceeded to explain that while plaintiff had degenerative disc disease since 1988, plaintiff did not

consult with any specialist for treatment until he filed his application for Supplemental Security

Income and Disability Insurance Benefits on January 17, 2003. Id. In addition, the ALJ noted that

the only treatment plaintiff received during this time was “seeing his family physician

periodically.” Id. Finally, the ALJ considered plaintiff’s physical therapy, and the examinations

and tests that were performed on plaintiff, and concluded that they did not support plaintiff’s

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GEORGE J. ZELLERS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 04-2890

Order

And now this ___ day of June 2005, upon consideration of the parties’ cross-motions for

summary judgment, and after careful review of the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice and plaintiff’s objections thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.1

Case 2:04-cv-02890-WY Document 15 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 2
allegations. The Third Circuit has deemed proper the consideration of a claimant’s medical

history in assessing credibility. See, e.g., Burns v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 113, 129-30 (3d Cir. 2002)

(comparing claimant’s testimony to the medical opinions in the case record and finding

claimant’s testimony “not fully credible”). In light of the foregoing, the court agrees with

Magistrate Judge Rice that the ALJ’s assessment of plaintiff’s credibility was supported by

substantial evidence. See MJRR at 13-14.

With reference to whether the ALJ properly considered the testimony of the VE, the court

finds that plaintiff’s characterization of that testimony is misleading. As stated above, plaintiff

contends that the “VE testified that, based on the Plaintiff’s limitations, the Plaintiff was

unemployable.” Objections at 1. However, the VE actually named three jobs plaintiff could

perform – finish machine operator, quality control worker, and grading and sorting worker –

when the ALJ asked the VE to assume a hypothetical person with plaintiff’s characteristics. R.

278. It was only after the ALJ added several other hypothetical characteristics – having to lie

down for an hour during the workday, miss two days per workweek, and take percocet three

times per day – that the VE stated that plaintiff would be unemployable. R. 273-77. “A

hypothetical question must reflect all of a claimant’s impairments that are supported by the

record.” Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.2d 1269, 1276 (3d Cir. 1987). As stated above, the ALJ

properly assessed plaintiff’s credibility and medical history and decided that plaintiff did not

have the additional hypothetical characteristics that would have rendered him unemployable. 

Thus, the court agrees with Magistrate Judge Rice that “the ALJ’s initial hypothetical question

properly addressed the limitations established by the evidence,” and thus “the ALJ properly relied

on the VE’s response to the first hypothetical question.” MJRR at 15. 

2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

3. The motion of plaintiff George J. Zellers for summary judgment is DENIED. 

4. The motion of Defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security,

for summary judgment is GRANTED.

5. Judgment is entered affirming the decision of the Commissioner.

___________________________

William H. Yohn, Jr., Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02890-WY Document 15 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 2