Filed: Feb. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER ALAN N. BLOCH , District Judge . AND NOW, this 26 th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court, upon review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security's final decision, denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits under Subchapter II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401, et seq. , and denying Plaintiff's claim for supplemental security income benefits under Subchapter XVI of the Social Security Ac
Summary: ORDER ALAN N. BLOCH , District Judge . AND NOW, this 26 th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court, upon review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security's final decision, denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits under Subchapter II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401, et seq. , and denying Plaintiff's claim for supplemental security income benefits under Subchapter XVI of the Social Security Act..
More
ORDER
ALAN N. BLOCH, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2015, upon consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court, upon review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security's final decision, denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits under Subchapter II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq., and denying Plaintiff's claim for supplemental security income benefits under Subchapter XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381, et seq., finds that the Acting Commissioner's findings are supported by substantial evidence and, accordingly, affirms. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Jesurum v. Sec'y of U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 48 F.3d 114, 117 (3d Cir. 1995); Williams v. Sullivan, 970 F.2d 1178, 1182 (3d Cir. 1992), cert. denied sub nom., 507 U.S. 924 (1993); Brown v. Bowen, 845 F.2d 1211, 1213 (3d Cir. 1988); see also Berry v. Sullivan, 738 F.Supp. 942, 944 (W.D. Pa. 1990) (if supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner's decision must be affirmed, as a federal court may neither reweigh the evidence, nor reverse, merely because it would have decided the claim differently) (citing Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 705 (3d Cir. 1981)).1
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 11) is DENIED and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 12) is GRANTED.
