1. The record does not show which of these two dates is accurate. 

For the purposes of this order, that gap is inconsequential.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GAIL FERRARA, :

:

Plaintiff : No. 4:CV-05-0121

:

v. : Complaint Filed 10/25/01

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, :

Commissioner of Social Security : (Judge Muir)

Administration, :

:

Defendant : (Magistrate Judge Smyser)

ORDER

August 18, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On either June 21, 2001, or August 4, 2001,1 Plaintiff Gail

Ferrara filed an application for disability insurance benefits in

which she claimed to have been disabled as of April 2, 2001,

because of a cervical spine condition, carpal tunnel syndrome,

rheumatoid arthritis, and peptic ulcers. An administrative

hearing, at which Ferrara was the sole witness, was held on March

11, 2003. 

On July 24, 2003, the Administrative Law Judge issued a

decision in which he denied Ferrara’s application for benefits. 

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Ferrara’s cervical

spine condition, carpal tunnel syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis,

Case 4:05-cv-00121-MM Document 15 Filed 08/18/05 Page 1 of 5
2

and peptic ulcers were not sufficiently severe, either singly or

in combination, to entitle Ferrara to the benefits she sought.

Ferrara filed her complaint in this court on January 19,

2005. The Clerk of Court assigned responsibility for this case

to us but referred it to United States Magistrate Judge J. Andrew

Smyser for preliminary consideration. The matter was fully

briefed in accordance with the local rules.

On July 29, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a 27-page

report recommending that this action be remanded to the

Administrative Law Judge because 1) the Administrative Law

Judge’s determination regarding the severity of Ferrara’s

impairments is not supported by substantial evidence; and 2) the

Administrative Law Judge’s determination concerning Ferrara’s

residual functional capacity is not adequately explained. 

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were to have

been filed by August 15, 2005, and to this date none have been

filed. On August 11, 2005, the Defendant filed a letter advising

us that she “waives the opportunity to object to the Report and

recommendation entered by the Magistrate Judge ....” (Document

14)

When no objections are filed to the report of a Magistrate

Judge, we need only review that report as we in our discretion

deem appropriate. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 145, 151-52 (1985). In

an appeal of the denial of Social Security Benefits, our review

Case 4:05-cv-00121-MM Document 15 Filed 08/18/05 Page 2 of 5
3

of the Magistrate Judge’s report and the issues therein is

governed not only by that principle but also by 42 U.S.C.

§405(g). In such cases our review is less than plenary. A

decision of the Commissioner which is supported by substantial

evidence must be affirmed. E.g., Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058,

1064 (3d Cir. 1993).

Substantial evidence is “‘more than a mere scintilla. It

means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as

adequate to support a conclusion.’” Richardson v. Perales, 420

U.S. 389, 401 (1971)(quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B.,

305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). Substantial evidence exists only “in

relationship to all the other evidence in the record,” Cotter v.

Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 706 (3d Cir. 1981), and “must take into

account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.”

Universal Camera Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1971).

Magistrate Judge Smyser concludes that there are two reasons

to remand this case to the Administrative Law Judge. The first 

is that the Administrative Law Judge did not sufficiently explain

his rejection of the medical evidence concerning the severity of

Ferrara’s impairments. Magistrate Judge Smyser specifically

comments that “the ALJ disregarded doctors’ opinions in favor of

his own interpretation of medical reports to reach his

conclusions.” (Report and Recommendation, p. 17) The second

reason cited by the Magistrate Judge to remand this case is that

Case 4:05-cv-00121-MM Document 15 Filed 08/18/05 Page 3 of 5
4

the Administrative Law Judge’s explanation of his conclusions

relating to Ferrara’s residual functional capacity does not

comply with the requirements established by the Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit in Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 41

(3d Cir. 2001), and Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d

Cir.1981). 

Our review of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge’s

determinations. The Administrative Law Judge failed to address

much medical evidence supporting the conclusion that Ferrara’s

impairments are severe (including the report and medical opinion

of her treating physician), and he did not sufficiently explain

the reasons for his determination regarding Ferrara’s functional

capacity.

Because we find no error in Magistrate Judge Smyser’s Report

and Recommendation and because no objections have been filed to

it, we will adopt it as our own. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Smyser filed on July 29, 2005, is adopted in toto.

2. This case is remanded to the Administrative Law Judge

for reconsideration of the evidence concerning

Ferrara’s impairments and her residual functional

capacity.

Case 4:05-cv-00121-MM Document 15 Filed 08/18/05 Page 4 of 5
5

3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

 s/Malcolm Muir 

 MUIR, U.S. District Judge

MM:ga

Case 4:05-cv-00121-MM Document 15 Filed 08/18/05 Page 5 of 5