Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

KATHLEEN DRU MEYERS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. 4:14-cv-00548-GBC 

 

(MAGISTRATE JUDGE COHN) 

MEMORANDUM 

Docs. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 

MEMORANDUM

I. Procedural Background

On August 30, 2010, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance 

benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) under the Social 

Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§401-433, 1382-1383 (the “Act”). (Tr. 172-78). On 

October 18, 2010, the Bureau of Disability Determination denied this application

(Tr. 69-81), and Plaintiff filed a request for a hearing on December 23, 2010. (Tr. 

82-84). On February 23, 2012, an ALJ held a hearing at which Plaintiff—who was 

represented by an attorney—and a vocational expert (“VE”) appeared and testified. 

(Tr. 39-68). On April 20, 2012, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled and 

not entitled to benefits. (Tr. 21-38). On June 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for 

review with the Appeals Council (Tr. 18-20), which the Appeals denied on January 

24, 2014, thereby affirming the decision of the ALJ as the “final decision” of the 

Case 4:14-cv-00548-GBC Document 14 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 11
Page 2 of 11

Commissioner. (Tr. 1-8). 

On March 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed the above-captioned action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 405(g) to appeal the decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. 1). On May 21, 

2014, the Commissioner filed an answer and administrative transcript of 

proceedings. (Docs. 6, 7). On June 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a brief in support of her 

appeal (“Pl. Brief”). (Doc. 8). On July 23, Defendant filed a brief in response 

(“Def. Brief”). (Doc. 9). On December 5, 2014, the parties consented to transfer of 

this case to the undersigned for adjudication. (Doc. 12, 13). The matter is now ripe 

for review. 

II. Standard of Review 

 When reviewing the denial of disability benefits, the Court must determine 

whether substantial evidence supports the denial. Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 

529 F.3d 198, 200 (3d Cir. 2008); Brown v. Bowen, 845 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 

1988). Substantial evidence is a deferential standard of review. See Jones v. 

Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 503 (3d Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence “does not mean a 

large or considerable amount of evidence, but rather ‘such relevant evidence as a 

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Pierce v. 

Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. of New York v. 

N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). In other words, substantial evidence requires 

“more than a mere scintilla” but is “less than a preponderance.” Jesurum v. Sec’y 

Case 4:14-cv-00548-GBC Document 14 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 11
Page 3 of 11

of U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 48 F.3d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing 

Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). 

III. Sequential Evaluation Process 

To receive disability or supplemental security benefits, a claimant must 

demonstrate an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of 

any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected 

to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous 

period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 

1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act requires that a claimant for disability benefits show that 

he has a physical or mental impairment of such a severity that: 

He is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering 

his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of 

substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, 

regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which 

he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether 

he would be hired if he applied for work. 

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B). 

The Commissioner uses a five-step evaluation process to determine if a 

person is eligible for disability benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520; see also

Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 428 (3d Cir. 1999). If the Commissioner finds 

that a Plaintiff is disabled or not disabled at any point in the sequence, review does 

not proceed. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The Commissioner must sequentially 

determine: (1) whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) 

Case 4:14-cv-00548-GBC Document 14 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 11
Page 4 of 11

whether the claimant has a severe impairment; (3) whether the claimant’s 

impairment meets or equals a listed impairment from 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart 

P, Appendix 1 (“Listing”); (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, 

416.920. Before moving on to step four in this process, the ALJ must also 

determine Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). 20 C.F.R. §§ 

404.1520(e), 416.920(e). 

The disability determination involves shifting burdens of proof. The 

claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through four. If the claimant 

satisfies this burden, then the Commissioner must show at step five that jobs exist 

in the national economy that a person with the claimant’s abilities, age, education, 

and work experience can perform. Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058, 1064 (3d Cir. 

1993). The ultimate burden of proving disability within the meaning of the Act lies 

with the claimant. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 416.912(a). 

IV. Relevant Facts in the Record 

Plaintiff was born on October 22, 1960, and was classified by the 

Regulations as a person closely approaching advanced age through the date of the 

ALJ decision. (Tr. 44). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563. Plaintiff has at least at least a high 

school education and past relevant work as a housekeeper. (Tr. 44). 

Case 4:14-cv-00548-GBC Document 14 Filed 03/31/15 Page 4 of 11
Page 5 of 11

A. Medical Records before the ALJ 

Plaintiff asserts disability as a result of chronic hepatitis C, right hip 

osteoarthritis post open reduction and internal fixation acetabular, right hip greater 

trochanteric bursitis, depression, bipolar disorder, polysubstance abuse, alcohol 

dependence, migraines, cervicalgia, gastroparesis with accompanying vomiting 

and fatigue, severe osteoporosis, anxiety, panic attacks, post traumatic stress 

disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), and recurrent 

pneumonia. (Pl. Brief at 2-3). 

The ALJ reviewed a limited range of medical records. These records show 

that Plaintiff had an inpatient hospitalization at the Meadows Psychiatric Center 

from July 31, 2010 to August 12, 2010. (Tr. 391-95). Plaintiff medications were 

adjusted and on discharge she was doing “well.” (Tr. 394). Plaintiff was also 

evaluated for her mental impairments at Universal Community Behavioral Health 

on August 16, 2010. (Tr. 280-91). The transcript also contains records from an 

April 2009 emergency room visit, eighty-seven pages of records from Geisinger 

Medical Center, and seven pages of orthopedic examinations and X-rays. (Tr. 263-

73, 296-389). 

B. Medical Records that were not before the ALJ 

Plaintiff was treated at Mt. Nittany Medical Center from January 27, 2011 

through 2012. (Tr. 465-658). She was treated for left thoracic pain, a frontal 

Case 4:14-cv-00548-GBC Document 14 Filed 03/31/15 Page 5 of 11
Page 6 of 11

headache, finger numbness and tingling, left knee pain after a fall, right ankle pain 

resulting from a fall as she tried to turn off her lights, right leg pain after missing a 

step and falling while carrying her granddaughter, and a cough. (Tr. 465, 470-71, 

482, 499, 511, 526, 583, 957). Plaintiff was diagnosed with myofascial pain, 

nonunion of rib number 9, Tegretol intoxicity, knee pain, and pneumonia. (Tr. 466, 

470, 502, 585). Plaintiff was treated with nerve block injections, physical therapy, 

medication, and an electrode nerve stimulator unit for home use. (Tr. 466, 468). In 

August 2011, Plaintiff was instructed to avoid weight bearing. (Tr. 502). 

In March, June, September 2011, Dr. Martin administered injections in 

Plaintiff’s right hip (Tr. 928-30). In January, March, and June 2012, Plaintiff 

complained of right hip and leg pain (Tr. 919-23). Dr. Martin administered 

injections and told Plaintiff to weight bear as tolerated (Tr. 919-23). 

Plaintiff also received subsequent treatment for chronic hepatitis C (Tr. 704-

755, 937-1010, 1050-1063), right hip osteoarthritis post open reduction and 

internal fixation acetabular (Tr. 704-755, 937-1010, 1050-63), gastroparesis with 

accompanying vomiting and fatigue (Tr. 658, 659-703, 864-91 93 1010), severe 

osteoporosis (Tr. at 455-658, 756-812), anxiety, panic attacks (Tr.756-812, 1050-

1063), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPO) (Tr.. at 455- 658, 756-812) 

and recurrent pneumonia (Tr. 455-658,659-703, 756-812,813-863,864-914,1011-

1049,1050-1063). 

Case 4:14-cv-00548-GBC Document 14 Filed 03/31/15 Page 6 of 11
Page 7 of 11

C. ALJ Findings 

On April 20, 2012, the ALJ issued the decision. (Tr. 34). At step one, the 

ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 

28, 2010, the alleged onset date. (Tr. 26). At step two, the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff’s chronic hepatitis C, right hip osteoarthritis post open reduction and 

internal fixation acetabular, right hip greater trochanteric bursitis, bipolar disorder, 

polysubstance dependence, adult antisocial acts, depressive disorder, migraines, 

cervicalgia, and alcohol dependence were medically determinable and severe. (Tr. 

26). At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not meet or equal a Listing. (Tr. 

27). The ALJ found that Plaintiff had the RFC to perform light work limited to 

occasionally bending, balancing, stooping, crouching, and climbing ramps and 

stairs and never climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds, never kneeling, and never 

crawling. (Tr. 30). Plaintiff was restricted from environmental hazards and limited 

to simple, routine tasks involving no more than simple, short instructions and 

simple, work-related decisions with few work place changes (1-2 step procedures), 

unable to work at production pace, and limited to only occasional interaction with 

coworkers, supervisors, and the public. (Tr. 30). A step four, the ALJ found that 

Plaintiff could perform past relevant work. (Tr. 32). At step five, in accordance 

with VE testimony, the ALJ also found that Plaintiff could perform other work in 

Case 4:14-cv-00548-GBC Document 14 Filed 03/31/15 Page 7 of 11
Page 8 of 11

the national economy. (Tr. 32). Consequently, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not 

disabled and not entitled to benefits. (Tr. 33). 

V. Plaintiff Allegations of Error 

A. The ALJ’s failure to develop the record 

Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to develop the record by obtaining 

medical records only through January of 2011. The ALJ reviewed 191 pages of 

medical records from April of 2009 through January of 2011. (Tr. 262-454). The 

ALJ did not obtain any medical records from January of 2011 through April 20, 

2012, the date of the ALJ decision. After the ALJ decision, Plaintiff obtained new 

counsel. (Tr. 17). Plaintiff’s new counsel submitted an additional 667 pages of 

medical records that cover the period of February 2006 to September of 2012. (Tr. 

455-1122). These records were neither requested nor reviewed by the ALJ. 

Defendant responds that the ALJ offered Plaintiff’s counsel the opportunity to 

submit the records, and that the records would not have changed the ALJ’s 

decision. (Def. Brief at 12-14). 

The Third Circuit has explained: 

The right to an unbiased ALJ is particularly important because of the 

active role played by ALJs in social security cases. See Hess, 497 F.2d 

at 840–841. ALJs have a duty to develop a full and fair record in 

social security cases. See Brown v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 931, 934 (11th 

Cir.1995); Smith v. Harris, 644 F.2d 985, 989 (3d Cir.1981). 

Accordingly, an ALJ must secure relevant information regarding a 

claimant's entitlement to social security benefits. Hess, 497 F.2d at 

841. In Hess we reasoned that “[a]lthough the burden is upon the 

Case 4:14-cv-00548-GBC Document 14 Filed 03/31/15 Page 8 of 11
Page 9 of 11

claimant to prove his disability, due regard for the beneficent purposes 

of the legislation requires that a more tolerant standard be used in this 

administrative proceeding than is applicable in a typical suit in a court 

of record where the adversary system prevails.” Id. at 840. 

Ventura v. Shalala, 55 F.3d 900, 902 (3d Cir. 1995). “It is the ALJ's duty to 

investigate the facts and develop the arguments both for and against granting 

benefits.” Carmichael v. Barnhart, 104 F. App'x 803, 805 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting 

Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 111, 120 S.Ct. 2080, 147 L.Ed.2d 80 (2000)). This 

creates an affirmative obligation on the part of the ALJ to develop the record: 

We do not say that an administrative law judge must search out all the 

relevant evidence which might be available, since that would in effect 

shift the burden of proof to the government. But, these proceedings 

are extremely important to the claimants, who are in real need in most 

instances and who claim not charity but that which is rightfully due as 

provided for in Chapter 7, Subchapter II, of the Social Security Act. 

20 C.F.R. § 404.927 (1973), in addressing the duties of the hearing 

officer, says in part: 

‘. . . The Administrative Law Judge shall inquire fully into the 

matters at issue and shall receive in evidence the testimony of 

witnesses and any documents which are relevant and material to 

such matters. If the Administrative Law Judge believes that 

there is relevant and material evidence available which has not 

been presented at the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge 

may adjourn the hearing or, at any time prior to the mailing of 

notice of the decision, reopen the hearing for the receipt of such 

evidence . . .’ 

20 C.F.R. § 404.926 (1973) says in part: 

‘When reasonably necessary for the full presentation of a case, 

an Administrative Law Judge . . . may, either upon his own 

motion or upon the request of a party, issue subpoenas for the 

attendance and testimony of witnesses and for the production of 

Case 4:14-cv-00548-GBC Document 14 Filed 03/31/15 Page 9 of 11
Page 10 of 11

books, records, correspondence, papers, or other documents 

which are relevant and material to any matter in issue at the 

hearing . . .’ 

Our reading of the record confirms the administrative law judge's 

conclusion that the claimant's condition is puzzling, and we think that 

current medical evidence would have been extremely helpful in 

removing some of the doubts which the hearing officer and this court 

entertain. 

Hess v. Sec'y of Health, Ed. & Welfare, 497 F.2d 837, 840-41 (3d Cir. 1974). 

 Here, the ALJ reviewed only 191 pages of medical records. Supra. Plaintiff 

subsequently submitted 667 additional records. These records were “reasonably 

necessary for the full presentation of the case.” Id. For instance, they 

showadditional attempts at aggressive treatment, including with nerve block 

injections, physical therapy, medication, and an electrode nerve stimulator unit for 

home use from Mt. Nittany and injections from Dr. Martin. (Tr. 466, 468, 919, 

923, 928-30). The ALJ reviewed few, if any, records related to Plaintiff’s COPD 

and osteoporosis. (Tr. 455-658, 756-812). The record reviewed by the ALJ is 

particularly scant with regard to Plaintiff’s physical, as opposed to mental, 

impairments, with ten pages of records from an April 2009 emergency room visit, 

eighty-seven pages of records from Geisinger Medical Center, and seven pages of 

orthopedic examinations and X-rays. (Tr. 263-73, 296-389). The Court cannot 

conclude that the ALJ would not have decided differently had the additional 

medical records been available. 

Case 4:14-cv-00548-GBC Document 14 Filed 03/31/15 Page 10 of 11
Page 11 of 11

The Court remands for the ALJ to consider the medical evidence from 

January of 2011 through 2012. Because the Court recommends remand on these 

grounds, the Court declines to address Plaintiff’s other allegations of error. 

VII. Conclusion 

The Court finds that the ALJ’s decision lacks substantial evidence because 

the ALJ failed to develop the record. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the decision 

of the Commissioner is vacated, and this case is remanded for further proceedings. 

An appropriate Order in accordance with this Memorandum will follow. 

Dated: March 31, 2015 s/Gerald B. Cohn 

 GERALD B. COHN 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 4:14-cv-00548-GBC Document 14 Filed 03/31/15 Page 11 of 11