Jacobs v. Bisignano

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and affirmed the Commissioner’s determination that the plaintiff’s disability ended on April 30, 2015. The court rejected the plaintiff’s objections, finding that the administrative law judge’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.

Holdings

1. The ALJ did not err in finding medical improvement because the ALJ conducted the required longitudinal analysis and the finding was supported by substantial evidence.
2. The ALJ did not err in finding that Jacobs was capable of performing a full range of light work because Jacobs failed to show that Dr. Ostrow's testimony conflicted with that finding.
3. The ALJ's finding that Jacobs could perform detailed work was supported by substantial evidence.
4. The ALJ did not err in finding that Jacobs could perform a significant number of available jobs because she had the mental capacity for simple, repetitive, and routine tasks.
5. The report and recommendation was adopted in its entirety because, after independent review and reasoned consideration of the objections, the court found no clear error on the face of the record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ properly analyzed whether medical improvement had occurred.
2. Whether the ALJ properly considered medical-expert Dr. Ostrow's testimony concerning Jacobs's ability to perform light work.
3. Whether the ALJ erred in finding that Jacobs could perform detailed work.
4. Whether the ALJ erred in finding that Jacobs could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers.
5. Whether the magistrate judge's report and recommendation contained clear error warranting rejection.

Disposition

affirmed