Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180420_0000996.EPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:58:52+00:00

Document:
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,  Defendant.
Ven Ouk seeks judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Upon consideration of the administrative record, Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13), and the parties' Objections and Responses thereto (ECF Nos. 14 & 16), the Court overrules Ouk's objections, denies her request for review and affirms the Commissioner's decision.
On November 8, 2017, Judge Lloret issued his R & R rejecting each argument and recommending that Ouk's request for review be denied and judgment be entered in favor of the Commissioner. (ECF No. 13.) Ouk objects to each of Judge Lloret's conclusions, reiterating her initial arguments and requiring the Court to review her arguments de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Pursuant to Section 636(b)(1), the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court's role on review is to determine whether the ALJ's determinations were supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 552 (3d Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence is evidence which a “reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Rutherford, 399 F.3d at 552 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “It is ‘more than a mere scintilla but may be somewhat less than a preponderance of the evidence.'” Id. (quoting Ginsburg v. Richardson, 436 F.2d 1146, 1148 (3d Cir. 1971)).
In reviewing the ALJ's decision, the Court is not permitted to re-weigh the evidence or substitute its own conclusions for those reached by the ALJ. Chandler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 359 (3d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). “The ALJ resolves conflicts in the evidence, determines the evidence's credibility, and assigns the appropriate weight to be given such evidence.” D'angelo v. Colvin, No. 14-6594, 2016 WL 930690, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2016) (citing Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999); Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058, 1066 (3d Cir. 2004)). “If the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the Court may not set it aside even if the Court would have decided the factual inquiry differently.” Santiago v. Barnhart, 367 F.Supp.2d 728, 732 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (citing Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 360 (3d Cir. 1999)).
The ALJ's decision must “present a sufficient explanation of the final determination in order to provide the reviewing court with the benefit of the factual basis underlying the ultimate disability finding.” D'angelo, 2016 WL 930690, at *1 (citing Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704-05 (3d Cir. 1981)). The decision need only discuss the most relevant evidence concerning a claimant's disability, “but it must provide sufficient discussion to allow the reviewing Court to determine whether its rejection of potentially significant evidence was proper.” Id. (citing Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 529 F.3d 198, 203-04 (3d Cir. 2008)).

References: § 636
 v. 
 § 636
 § 405
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.