1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DENEEN L. WILLIAMS : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, : NO. 05-5484

Commissioner of the Social :

Security Administration :

ORDER

Upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Scuderi’s Report and Recommendation,

plaintiff’s objections thereto, and the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, I hold that

the Administrative Law Judge’s determination was supported by substantial evidence. With

respect to plaintiff’s objection argument that this case should be remanded because the ALJ did

not discuss the significance of plaintiff’s GAF score of 55, the ALJ’s failure in this regard did not

constitute an error of law; although the ALJ cited only to the page of plaintiff’s August 2004

psychological report on which the GAF score is stated, the ALJ reviewed the entire psychological

report upon which her GAF number was based and discussed the doctor’s views of her

psychological status: “her affect was appropriate, speech was normal and relevant, insight and

judgment were normal, she was capable of abstract thinking, her calculation was good, and

attention was normal. The only positive finding was a depressed mood.” The ALJ properly

found that notwithstanding plaintiff’s depressed mood “[t]here is no evidence that she has any

significant limitations in her ability to perform her activities of daily living, maintain social

functioning, or concentrate and persist at tasks due to depression,” and thus that there was no

evidence to support a finding of a severe impairment.

Case 2:05-cv-05484-TON Document 11 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 3
2

Plaintiff cites four cases in support of her position. See Colon v. Barnhart, --- F. Supp. 2d

---, No. 05-1541, 2006 WL 782434 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2006) (Baylson, J.) (finding that the ALJ’s

conclusion that plaintiff “can engage in a limited range of medium work with certain nonexertional limitations [was] not based upon substantial evidence” because the ALJ only discussed

two of plaintiff’s twelve GAF scores and failed to discuss plaintiff’s two lowest GAF scores of

50); Thompson v. Barnhart, No. 05-0395, 2006 WL 709795 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2006) (Pratter, J.)

(holding that “the ALJ erred by not explaining in his decision how the GAF evidence was

evaluated” because a GAF score of 50 was inconsistent with the ALJ’s determination that

plaintiff’s “treatment notes from therapy sessions from 1999 to 2001 do not document significant

symptoms or limitations related to her mental impairments.”); Span v. Barnhart, No. 02-7399,

2004 Wl 1535768 (E.D. Pa. May 21, 2004) (Baylson, J.) (finding that the ALJ’s reliance upon a

doctor’s findings to conclude that plaintiff’s condition did not constitute a disability was not

supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to explain how he weighed and

discounted the significance of plaintiff’s GAF scores, all of which were below 50); Escardille v.

Barnhart, No. 02-2930, 2003 WL 21499999 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 24, 2003) (Giles, J.) (remanding case

to ALJ because the ALJ failed to evaluate a physician’s report which stated that plaintiff had a

GAF score of 50). 

However, these cases are distinguishable from the present case on three grounds. In

Colon, Thompson, Span, and Escardille this Court held that the ALJs’ determinations were not

supported by substantial evidence because: (1) the ALJs failed to review plaintiffs’ multiple

psychological evaluations and low GAF scores; (2) those GAF scores suggested significant

psychological impairments; and (3) the low GAF scores were inconsistent with the ALJs’

Case 2:05-cv-05484-TON Document 11 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 3
3

determinations that plaintiffs did not suffer from any severe mental impairments. By contrast,

the ALJ’s failure to discuss plaintiff’s GAF score in this case does not preclude a finding that the

ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence because: (a) plaintiff only had one

psychological evaluation and thus only one GAF score; (b) plaintiff’s GAF score is higher than

those in Colon, Thompson, Span, and Escardille and suggests only moderate symptoms or

moderate difficulty in social or occupational functioning; and (c) the ALJ’s determination that

plaintiff did not suffer from any severe mental impairments is not inconsistent with a GAF score

of 55.

With respect to the remainder of plaintiff’s objection arguments, they are addressed

specifically in Judge Scuderi’s Report and Recommendation. I agree with Judge Scuderi’

conclusions and find that the ALJ’s disability determination was supported by substantial

evidence.

AND NOW, this 31st day of May 2006, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The 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 and judgment is entered in

favor of defendant, Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration, and against plaintiff, Deneen L. Williams.

s/ Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr. 

THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., J.

Case 2:05-cv-05484-TON Document 11 Filed 05/31/06 Page 3 of 3