1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TIFFANY M. BROCK, : CIVIL NO. 4:04-CV-2080

:

Plaintiff, : (Judge Jones)

:

v. :

:

JOANNE B. BARNHART, : (Magistrate Judge Blewitt)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL :

SECURITY :

:

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

August 17, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

On or about April 9, 2003, Plaintiff Tiffany M. Brock (“Plaintiff” or

“Brock”), filed a formal application for social security disability insurance benefits

based upon assertions that she had been disabled since October 7, 2002 due to

fibromyalgia, gastroesophageal reflux dystrophy, fatigue, pain, endometriosis,

allergies, hypothyroidism, a history of torn cartilage in her left wrist, an injury to

her foot, abdominal pain, gallbladder distension, dilation of her stomach, cervical

strain status, left shoulder and left arm neuropathic pain radiating down to her

fingertips. After Plaintiff’s claim was denied initially, an administrative hearing

was held on May 25, 2004. Plaintiff was denied benefits by the Administrative

Case 4:04-cv-02080-JEJ Document 20 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 7
2

Law Judge (“ALJ”) pursuant to the decision of June 24, 2004. (See Reproduced

Record (“R.R.”) at 12-19). Plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ’s decision was

denied by the Appeals Council, making the decision of the ALJ the final decision

of the Commissioner. (See R.R. at 4-5). 

Plaintiff filed the instant action in the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Pennsylvania on September 20, 2004. (See Rec. Doc. 1). The

case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Blewitt for review. 

On July 19, 2005 the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that 

Plaintiff’s appeal be denied and this case dismissed. (Rec. Doc. 19). Objections

to the Magistrate Judge’s Report were due August 3, 2005 and to this date none

have been filed. This matter is therefore ripe for disposition.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

The Magistrate Judge provided a detailed account of the factual background

in his Report. To summarize, Plaintiff was twenty-eight years old at the time of the

ALJ’s decision, obtained a high school education, and was, at the time of hearing,

attending college at Mansfield University. She had previously worked as an

administrative assistant and as a receptionist from 1995-2002. (See R.R. at 34-35,

47; see also Rep. & Rec. at 5). Plaintiff testified that she was unable to work

because of a number of health problems, but that fibromyalgia caused her the most

Case 4:04-cv-02080-JEJ Document 20 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 7
3

difficulty. (See R.R. at 35). Plaintiff was also diagnosed with endometriosis, acid

reflux, allergies, hypothyroidism, torn cartilage in her left wrist and a possible tear

in her foot. See id. at 36-41; (Rep. & Rec. at 5). The ALJ found that when

considered in combination, Plaintiff’s impairments were severe. (R.R. at 13; Rep.

& Rec. at 5). The ALJ also found that the Plaintiff retained the residual capacity to

perform her past relevant work as an administrative assistant and receptionist. 

A vocational expert, Carmina Abraham (“VE”), testified that a person of

Plaintiff’s age, education, and work experience who is able to perform light work

with certain described limitations, would be able to perform Plaintiff’s past work. 

(R.R. at 51; Rep. & Rec. at 19).

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

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. See Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 145, 151-52(1985). In an appeal of the denial of Social Security

Benefits, our review of the Magistrate Judge’s report and the issues contained

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. See Mason v. Shalala, 994

F.2d 1058, 1064 (3d Cir. 1993).

Case 4:04-cv-02080-JEJ Document 20 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 7
4

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, 402 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 s. 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). Therefore, a reviewing court must scrutinize the record as a whole. See

Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 970 (3d Cir. 1981); see also Dobrowolosky v.

Califano, 606 F.2d 403, 407 (3d Cir. 1979). In an adequately developed factual

record, substantial evidence may be "something less than the weight of the

evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the

evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding from being supported

by substantial evidence." Consolo v. Federal Maritime Commission, 383 U.S. 607,

620 (1966).

DISCUSSION:

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations creating a five-step process

to determine if a claimant is disabled. This process requires the Commissioner to

consider, in sequence: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful

Case 4:04-cv-02080-JEJ Document 20 Filed 08/16/05 Page 4 of 7
5

activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the

claimant’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; (4) whether the

claimant’s impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work; and

(5) whether the claimant’s impairment prevents the claimant from doing any other

work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. 

In applying the foregoing, the ALJ determined the following: that Plaintiff

has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of her

disability; that Plaintiff’s various ailments are considered “severe” within the

meaning of the Regulations; but that these impairments were not severe enough to

meet or equal the criteria for establishing disability under the listed impairments set

forth in the Regulations. (See Rep. & Rec. at 4). Furthermore, the ALJ determined

that the Plaintiff had residual function capacity to perform her past relevant work

as an administrative assistant and receptionist. The VE defined this work as light,

and semi-skilled in nature. She further testified that sufficient jobs of this type

exist in the local economy.

Magistrate Judge Blewitt reviewed the administrative record and concluded

that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. First, the

Magistrate Judge found that proper deference had been granted to Plaintiff’s

treating physicians because they in fact had not found her to be continuously

Case 4:04-cv-02080-JEJ Document 20 Filed 08/16/05 Page 5 of 7
6

disabled for the appropriate twelve month period. Second, the Magistrate Judge

found that the ALJ properly considered the entirety of the Plaintiff’s testimony in

reviewing her application for disability benefits. Third, the Magistrate Judge

concluded that the ALJ did properly consider the Plaintiff’s insufficient

commitment to being employed in light of the relevant case law. Finally,

Magistrate Judge Blewitt found that the ALJ’s hypothetical question posed to the

VE was proper and accurately portrayed all of Plaintiff’s conditions that were

supported by the medical evidence.

Our review of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge’s determinations and

we have not been presented with any reason to revisit them. Because we find no

error in Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report and Recommendation and, because no

objections have been filed, we will adopt the Magistrate Judge’s findings as our

own.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 19) filed on July 19,

2005, is adopted in toto. 

2. Consistent with Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report and

Recommendation, Plaintiff’s complaint (Rec. Doc. 1) shall be

Case 4:04-cv-02080-JEJ Document 20 Filed 08/16/05 Page 6 of 7
7

dismissed.

3. The Clerk of Court shall close the file on this case.

s/ John E. Jones III 

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-02080-JEJ Document 20 Filed 08/16/05 Page 7 of 7