Substituted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25(d). *

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STACI K. JOHNSON : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE* : No. 05-cv-5060-JF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Fullam, Sr. J. February 15, 2007

Plaintiff Staci K. Johnson appeals from the decision of

the Commissioner denying her claim for disability insurance

benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The

magistrate judge to whom the case was referred recommends

upholding the denial. Plaintiff filed objections, and a hearing

was held. I conclude that the Commissioner’s decision is

supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld.

Plaintiff is now 42 years old. She was a hairdresser and

salon manager before she stopped working in December 1989 due to

pain in her right arm and shoulder, brought on by work related

activities. Plaintiff went to a number of specialists and was

diagnosed in 1990 with right thoracic outlet syndrome, a

neurovascular disease. Despite treatment, plaintiff’s condition

has worsened over the years, and now affects her left arm as

well. Plaintiff has received workers’ compensation since 1989. 

Case 2:05-cv-05060-JF Document 25 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 4
2

Plaintiff filed the present claim for disability benefits

in 1997. Because plaintiff was last insured for benefits on

March 31, 1991, she must prove she was disabled on or before that

date in order to qualify for any benefits under Title II. The

Appeals Council having remanded the case twice for a new hearing,

plaintiff’s burden at the third and most recent hearing before

the ALJ in 2005 was to establish that she was disabled in 1991,

some fourteen years earlier.

Plaintiff herself testified that she has been unable to

lift either of her arms since December 1989. She also submitted

numerous medical records and testimonies from treating physicians

and other medical and vocational experts, some dated to the

relevant time period, December 1989 to March 31, 1991, and others

to a later time. The ALJ concluded that although plaintiff

suffered from a severe impairment in 1991, she retained the

ability to perform certain limited sedentary tasks. A vocational

expert questioned by the ALJ testified that a person with

plaintiff’s ability could find work as a surveillance systems

monitor, a call-out operator, or an order clerk.

There is much medical evidence in the record that

supports the ALJ’s decision, and the magistrate judge has

convincingly addressed plaintiff’s arguments for overturning the

ALJ’s decision. Plaintiff’s recollection of her condition

Case 2:05-cv-05060-JF Document 25 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 4
3

fourteen years earlier was contradicted by some medical evidence. 

The ALJ considered the treatment records of Dr. James Hunter that

were within the relevant time period. It was not unreasonable

for the ALJ not to discuss Dr. Hunter’s opinions that were based

on plaintiff’s condition after the relevant time period. Nor was

the ALJ required to seek further clarification from Dr. Stephen

D. Lande when she did not find his report ambiguous. 

In her objections to the magistrate judge’s report,

plaintiff also argues that the ALJ should have consulted a

medical expert to determine the onset date of plaintiff’s

disability. That may be so when there is no contemporaneous

medical evidence, as was the case in Walton v. Halter, 243 F.3d

703 (3d Cir. 2001), relied upon by plaintiff. Here, however,

treatment records from the relevant time period provided the

medical evidence for the ALJ to determine that plaintiff was not

disabled as defined in the Social Security Act.

An order follows.

Case 2:05-cv-05060-JF Document 25 Filed 02/15/07 Page 3 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STACI K. JOHNSON : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE : No. 05-cv-5060-JF

 

 ORDER

 AND NOW, this 15 day of February, 2007, upon th

consideration of the report and recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Linda K. Caracappa, and plaintiff’s objections thereto, and

following oral argument, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation is

APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

3. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

4. Judgment is entered in favor of the defendant and

against the plaintiff.

5. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 25(d), the current

Commissioner of Social Security, Michael J. Astrue, is

substituted for Jo Anne B. Barnhart.

6. The Clerk is directed to close the file.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ John P. Fullam 

John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

Case 2:05-cv-05060-JF Document 25 Filed 02/15/07 Page 4 of 4