IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN RODRIGUEZ, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, :

: NO. 05-2781

v. :

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social Security, :

:

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM

BUCKWALTER, S.J. May 1, 2007

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objections to Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter. 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 (“Report”), 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: (1)

the Report’s conclusions are based on erroneous assumptions consequent to Defendant’s failure

Case 2:05-cv-02781-RB Document 18 Filed 05/02/07 Page 1 of 6
2

to properly “Notice” Plaintiff; (2) the Report fails to address the appropriate Third Circuit

Standards; and (3) post-briefing developments require remand in the interests of justice. 

A. Report Is Not Based on Erroneous Assumptions

First, Plaintiff argues that the Report is based on erroneous assumptions including

assumptions regarding (1) Defendant’s burden of demonstrating medical improvement, (2) Dr.

Krausz continued treatment of Plaintiff after January 2003, and (3) Plaintiff’s inability to review

Dr. Malloy’s memorandum in a timely manner. Plaintiff’s arguments concerning erroneous

assumptions are without merit for the reasons below.

1. Defendant has met her burden of demonstrating medical 

improvement

Plaintiff argues that the Commissioner did not satisfy her burden of demonstrating

medical improvement. This argument is addressed at length in the Report and Recommendation. 

This Court fully agrees with the analysis done in the Report and refers Plaintiff to the Report

beginning at page 9. 

2. Dr. Krausz’s continued treatment of Plaintiff after 

January 2003

Contrary to the Report’s conclusions, Plaintiff appears to be correct that Dr.

Krausz continued to treat Plaintiff after January 2003. (Report at 14 n.11). However as

evidenced by its mention in a footnote, this error is inconsequential because the Report places

limited emphasis on when treatment by Dr. Krausz ceased. Furthermore, as the Report explains

in detail, there was substantial evidence in the record to support a conclusion to discount the

opinion of Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Krausz. (Report at 13-14). Therefore, this error is

insufficient to establish that the Report is based on erroneous assumptions. 

Case 2:05-cv-02781-RB Document 18 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 of 6
1. See Pl’s Brief at 21-25.

3

3. Opportunity to review Dr. Malloy’s Memorandum

Plaintiff argues that he was not given an opportunity to review Dr. Malloy’s

memorandum in a timely manner. However, the record indicates that the Notice of the partial

award contains enclosures including Dr. Malloy’s memorandum. ®. at 364). Furthermore,

Plaintiff discusses Dr. Malloy’s memorandum at length within his brief for summary judgment1

and never once argues that he was not afforded the opportunity to review Dr. Malloy’s

memorandum. Therefore, after careful consideration, the Court has determined that Plaintiff has

been given an opportunity to review Dr. Malloy’s memorandum and thus this objection is

without merit. 

B. The Appropriate Third Circuit Standards

Next, Plaintiff argues that the Report fails to address the appropriate Third Circuit

standards because (1) the Magistrate Judge failed to address a case cited by the Plaintiff in his

brief, (2) the Report partially resuscitates some of ALJ’s findings, and (3) the Report fails to

properly apply case precedent for rejecting a treating specialist. For the reasons below, these

objections are without merit.

1. Magistrate Judge is not required to address specific cases

referenced by the parties

The Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge should have addressed Ramirez v.

Barnhart, 372 F.3d 546, 554-555 (3d Cir. 2004) which he cited in his brief. However, the

Magistrate Judge need only address cases and facts which he finds relevant to his analysis. The

Report clearly considers the issue addressed by Ramirez (noting whether the limitations of the

Case 2:05-cv-02781-RB Document 18 Filed 05/02/07 Page 3 of 6
2. ALJ’s Findings. (R. at 29-30). 

 Appeal’s Council’s Findings. (R. at 17-18).

 Excerpt from ALJ’s Opinion concerning substantial evidence relied upon by him:

Indeed, by his [Plaintiff’s] own account, he is able to drive, and drives his daughter

around to where she needs to go; he is able to shop, enjoys playing cards, watches

television, and has no problems taking out the trash, preparing meals and doing cleaning

chores. Claimant is the primary caregiver of his school-age daughter, and although

described as withdrawn, the progress notes show otherwise. He had a lady friend, spent

the Christmas holidays (2001) with friends, and is invariably described as cooperative

with good eye contact during his therapy sessions.

®. at 27).

4

Plaintiff were included in the hypothetical posed to the Vocational Expert). The Report fully

discusses Plaintiff’s limitations and the substantial evidence in the record to support Plaintiff’s

ability to perform low stress jobs. (Report at 14). Thus, this objection is without merit. 

2. The “partial” resuscitation of ALJ’s findings was proper

The Plaintiff’s argument that the Report improperly adopts some of the ALJ’s

findings is without merit. The Report carefully considered the facts just as the ALJ and Appeals

Council did and determined there was substantial evidence to support some of the ALJ’s

findings, which there is. Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument regarding the partial resuscitation of 2

ALJ’s findings is without merit. 

3. Magistrate Judge’s Report does properly apply case precedent

for rejecting treating specialist

Plaintiff argues that the Report fails to properly apply case precedent for rejecting

treating specialist. This argument is without merit as the Report clearly and correctly addresses

case precedent regarding the rejection of a treating specialist. (See Report at 12-13).

C. Post-briefing Developments Do Not Require Remand

Lastly, Plaintiff argues that his subsequent award of social security benefits should

impact the Court’s review of his initial award of closed period benefits. The Court disagrees

Case 2:05-cv-02781-RB Document 18 Filed 05/02/07 Page 4 of 6
3. Substantial Evidence of medical improvement includes: 

1. Plaintiff reported that he had been looking for a job. ®. at 17).

2. Treatment notes from December 2002 revealed Plaintiff was calm, cooperative, articulate, and

 had good eye contact. Id.

3. Dr. Malloy’s memorandum which stated Plaintiff had medically improved. ®. at 372-373).

4. Plaintiff was awarded benefits in an ALJ decision dated June 20, 2006 based on Plaintiff’s application dated July

7, 2004. (Pl’s Objections at 8).

5

because the well established review standard is whether there is substantial evidence within the

record to support the benefit determination. Jesurum v. Sec’y of United States Dep’t of Health

and Human Serv., 48 F.3d 114,117 (3d Cir. 1995). In this case, there is substantial evidence of

medical improvement for the period in which the Plaintiff was denied benefits, September 2002 3

through July 2004. Therefore, a subsequent social security benefits award based on a 4

subsequent application should not and does not impact this Court’s review of the initial

application and award. 

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-02781-RB Document 18 Filed 05/02/07 Page 5 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN RODRIGUEZ, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, :

: NO. 05-2781

v. :

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social Security, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1 day of May, 2007, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion st

for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 13), the Report and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter (Docket No. 16), Plaintiff’s Objections thereto (Docket No.

17), and a careful review of the entire record, 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 CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Ronald L. Buckwalter, S. J. 

 RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, S.J.

Case 2:05-cv-02781-RB Document 18 Filed 05/02/07 Page 6 of 6