1

 The magistrate judge incorrectly noted that the claim ant was a “younger individual” under the Social

Security regulations. Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) at 3. At fifty-four years old, she was actually a

person “closely approaching advanced age” when she last worked. 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(d). In addition, the

R&R states that the ALJ “never discussed the fact that Dr. Scott Cohen completed a Medical Source

Statement of Claimant’s Ability to Perform W ork-Related Physical Activities.” R&R at 27. While the ALJ failed

to reconcile Dr. Cohen’s lim itations on the claimant’s ability to perform substantial gainful activity, he did list

Dr. Cohen’s findings. Administrative Record (“R.”) at 26-27. These inaccuracies do not affect the

conclusions reached by the m agistrate judge. 

2

 A claimant’s subjective complaints of pain must be considered even when they are not supported

by objective evidence. Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058, 1067 (3d Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Moreover,

when a claim ant has a lengthy work history, her testimony concerning subjective complaints is entitled to

substantial credibility. Weber v. Massanari, 156 F.Supp.2d 475, 486 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (citing Taybron v. Harris,

667 F.2d 412, 415 n.6 (3d Cir. 1981)). 

 The ALJ adopted a medical consultant’s opinion over those of the claimant’s treating physicians

without sufficient explanation. He rejected the treating physicians’ conclusions on the basis of his perceived

lack of objective evidence. R. at 406. After determining that the objective evidence could not “reasonably be

expected to produce” the claim ant’s alleged symptoms, the ALJ found the claimant not to be fully credible.

R. at 30-31; See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. He did not adequately consider her complaints of pain, nor did he

give sufficient weight to her significant employment record. On remand, in addition to reassessing and m ore

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARIA FABIANO : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : No. 05-256

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART :

Commissioner of the Social Security :

Administration :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion

for Summary Judgment (Document No. 8), the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(Document No. 9), the plaintiff’s response, the Report and Recommendation of United

States Magistrate Judge Arnold C. Rapoport (Document No. 12), the Defendant’s

Objections to the Report & Recommendation, the plaintiff’s response, and after oral

argument and a thorough and independent review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report is APPROVED1 and his Recommendation is

ADOPTED;

2

Case 2:05-cv-00256-TJS Document 19 Filed 03/30/06 Page 1 of 2
fully explaining his treatment of the claimant’s treating physicians’ opinions, the ALJ must also give due

consideration to the claimant’s subjective complaints. 

2. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART;

3. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and,

4. This case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Report

and Recommendation.

 s/ Timothy J. Savage 

TIMOTHY J. SAVAGE, J.

Case 2:05-cv-00256-TJS Document 19 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2