IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VERENA STUDIVANT, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-1570

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social Security, :

:

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM

BUCKWALTER, S. J. June 1, 2006

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff’s Reply, and Plaintiff’s Objections to the

Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice. For the

reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled, and the Magistrate Judge’s Report

and Recommendation is approved and adopted.

I. DISCUSSION

After analyzing the reproduced record, the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)

opinion, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s Objections, the

Court finds that summary judgment is appropriately entered on behalf of Defendant.

Even though the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation, the Court will briefly address Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff argues that she

became disabled on April 1, 1995. According to Plaintiff, the ALJ’s finding of a later onset date,

Case 2:05-cv-01570-RB Document 17 Filed 06/01/06 Page 1 of 6
2

November 1, 2002, is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ improperly rejected

the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians in favor of the opinion of a non-examining medical

expert. 

The ALJ relied on the opinion of Dr. Hillel Raclaw, a clinical psychologist and

expert, in finding that Plaintiff is disabled and that the onset date of her disability was November

1, 2002. Dr. Raclaw stated that the “earliest piece of data” suggesting that Plaintiff had poor

memory and poor concentration was from May 2003. (R. 362.) From that date, Dr. Raclaw,

projected back six months, to November 1, 2002, to set the onset date of Plaintiff’s disability. 

The Court finds that substantial evidence supports Dr. Raclaw’s conclusion, and thereby the

ALJ’s conclusion, that Plaintiff became disabled on November 1, 2002. As such, the Court

agrees with the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation regarding the onset date of Plaintiff’s

disability. An analysis of the relevant portions of Plaintiff’s medical history follows.

As noted by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff supplied treatment records from

treating psychologists, psychiatrists, and her primary care physician from 1996 until 1999 and

also from May 2003 until July 2003. However, from August 1999 until May 2003, Plaintiff only

submitted treatment records from her primary care physician. Plaintiff did not submit records

from a mental health professional during this four year time span. 

The Court will begin by reviewing the opinion of Dr. Reeves, Plaintiff’s treating

psychiatrist from May 2003 until July 2003. On June 11, 2003, Dr. Reeves diagnosed Plaintiff’s

condition as “major depression, recurrent, in partial remission with features of anxiety.” (R.

243.) Dr. Reeves opined that Plaintiff was incapable of tolerating even low work stress and that

she would likely be absent from work more than three times a month due to her impairments or

Case 2:05-cv-01570-RB Document 17 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 6
1. Plaintiff also briefly argues that it was improper for the ALJ to fail to credit Dr. Reeves’s diagnosis because of a

lack of objective clinical or laboratory findings. The Court declines to address this tersely discussed argument as the

ALJ set forth three other reasons for failing to credit Dr. Reeves’s opinion in its entirety. 

3

treatment. Specifically, Dr. Reeves stated that one of Plaintiff’s most frequent and/or severe

clinical symptoms was “poor concentration.” (R. 245.) Finally, Dr. Reeves opined that the

earliest date that Plaintiff’s symptoms and limitations applied was 1996. (R. 250.)

The ALJ considered Dr. Reeves’s analysis and credited his diagnosis from only

November 1, 2002 onward, for the following reasons: 

1) [T]here is a lack of objective clinical or laboratory findings to

support the degree of limitations alleged; 2) he does not relate his

opinion to any specific findings for the period prior to November 1,

2002; and, 3) his opinion is not supported by reports which indicate

only routine outpatient care, with little or no continuing treatment or

use of prescribed medication for the period prior November 1, 2002.

(R. 36.) In addition, the ALJ pointed out that even though Dr. Reeves opined that Plaintiff’s

symptoms persisted since 1996, there is no evidence that Dr. Reeves was Plaintiff’s treating

psychiatrist in 1996. The evidence in the record indicates that Dr. Reeves was Plaintiff’s treating

psychiatrist beginning in May 2003. 

In response to the ALJ’s finding, Plaintiff argues that there is evidence in the

record that Plaintiff had poor memory and poor concentration prior to May 2003 that was not

discussed by Dr. Raclaw or the ALJ.1 In support of this argument, Plaintiff cites portions of her

medical records which indicate that she had problems with concentration and memory between

1997 and 1999. However, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, Dr. Raclaw conducted a thorough

analysis of the record and explained why the medical evidence from 1997-1999 does not

conclusively demonstrate that Plaintiff was disabled at this time. First, Dr. Raclaw, and the ALJ,

Case 2:05-cv-01570-RB Document 17 Filed 06/01/06 Page 3 of 6
4

noted that the evidence during this time period was inconsistent. For example, Dr. Meehan and

Dr. Stern indicated that Plaintiff had problems with memory and concentration (R. 142-45),

while, during the same time period, Dr. Jones reported that Plaintiff’s concentration was within

normal limits and that her remote and recent memory was intact. (R. 138-39.) Second, the ALJ

noted that the reports of Dr. Meehan and Dr. Stern were based on Plaintiff’s subjective

complaints and not personal observations. 

In addition, all of the records cited by Plaintiff are dated between 1997 and 1999. 

Plaintiff does not cite any medical records demonstrating that she had poor memory or poor

concentration between 1999 and November 1, 2002, the date that the ALJ determined that she

became disabled. As discussed previously, the only records that Plaintiff submitted for this time

frame are those of her primary care physician, Dr. Witt. Dr. Witt’s observations from 1999-2003

do not indicate that Plaintiff was disabled. In April 2000, Dr. Witt noted that Plaintiff was

seeking to find a new therapist but that her anxiety and depression were under “fair control.” (R.

293.) In February 2001, Dr. Witt’s treatment notes indicate that Plaintiff “admit[ted] to some

episodes of anxiety” but that she was having “good results” with a therapist and working on many

areas of her life. (R. 284.) Dr. Witt went on to state that Plaintiff’s depression “persist[ed]” but

was under “fair control.” (R. 270-71.)

While the evidence regarding Plaintiff’s condition was inconsistent from 1997-

1999 and incomplete from 1999-2003, there is consistent evidence that Plaintiff was disabled

beginning in May 2003, when she began treatment with Dr. Reeves. Dr. Raclaw extrapolated that

Plaintiff’s condition could be traced back six months to November 1, 2002. As the Magistrate

Judge points out, this extrapolation was not unreasonable given the lack of medical evidence from

Case 2:05-cv-01570-RB Document 17 Filed 06/01/06 Page 4 of 6
5

August 1999 until May 2003. Therefore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation with respect to crediting Dr. Reeves’s opinions as to Plaintiff’s condition

beginning on, but not before, November 1, 2002. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court approves and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation. An appropriate order follows.

Case 2:05-cv-01570-RB Document 17 Filed 06/01/06 Page 5 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VERENA STUDIVANT, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-1570

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social Security, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1st day of June 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for

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

12), Plaintiff’s Reply (Docket No. 13), the Report and Recommendation of the Chief United

States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice (Docket No. 15), and Plaintiff’s Objections thereto

(Docket No. 16), it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is APPROVED

and ADOPTED. Judgment is entered on behalf of Defendant and against Plaintiff. This case is

now CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter, S. J. 

 RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.

Case 2:05-cv-01570-RB Document 17 Filed 06/01/06 Page 6 of 6