Andrea N. v. Saul

• Decision Date: 09 March 2020
• Docket Number: No. 3:18-CV-1186 (CFH),3:18-CV-1186 (CFH)
• Parties: ANDREA N., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

ANDREA N., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. 3:18-CV-1186 (CFH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 9, 2020

APPEARANCES:

Lachman, Gorton Law Firm

P.O. Box 89

1500 East Main Street

Endicott, New York 13761-0089

Attorneys for plaintiff

Social Security Administration

Office of Regional General Counsel,

Region II

26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 3904

New York, New York 10278

Attorneys for defendant

OF COUNSEL:

PETER A. GORTON, ESQ.

PETER W. JEWETT, ESQ.

CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER¹

Plaintiff Andrea N.² brings this action pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner")denying her application for supplemental security income ("SSI") benefits. See Dkt. No. 1 ("Compl.").³ Plaintiff moves for a finding of disability or remand for further administrative proceedings, and the Commissioner cross moves for a judgment on the pleadings. See Dkt. Nos. 9, 10. Plaintiff filed a reply. See Dkt. No. 11-1. For the following reasons, the determination of the Commissioner is affirmed.

I. Background

Plaintiff was born in 1981, and obtained a G.E.D. See T. 38, 59. Plaintiff lives with her two children. See id. at 38. Plaintiff last worked in 2009 as a waitress at Denny's until she was "laid off." Id. at 34. On November 19, 2014, plaintiff protectively filed a Title XVI application for SSI benefits, alleging a disability onset date of October 1, 2013. See id. at 159. Her application was initially denied on January 20, 2015. See id. at 73. Plaintiff requested a hearing, and a hearing was held on June 13, 2017 before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Shawn Bozarth. See id. at 30. On July 31, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. See id. at 23. On July 30, 2018, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review, making the ALJ's decision the final determination of the Commissioner. See id. at 1. Plaintiff commenced this action on October 2, 2018. See Compl.

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

In reviewing a final decision of the Commissioner, a district court may not determine de novo whether an individual is disabled. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1388(c)(3); Wagner v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 906 F.2d 856, 860 (2d Cir. 1990). Rather, the Commissioner's determination will only be reversed if the correct legal standards were not applied, or it was not supported by substantial evidence. See Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 985 (2d Cir. 1987); Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (2d Cir. 1982). Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla," meaning that in the record one can find "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (internal citations omitted)). The substantial evidence standard is "a very deferential standard of review . . . . [This] means once an ALJ finds facts, we can reject [them] only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise." Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotations marks omitted). Where there is reasonable doubt as to whether the Commissioner applied the proper legal standards, the decision should not be affirmed even though the ultimate conclusion is arguably supported by substantial evidence. See Martone v. Apfel, 70 F. Supp. 2d 145, 148 (N.D.N.Y. 1999) (citing Johnson, 817 F.2d at 986). However, if the correct legal standards were applied and the ALJ's finding is supported by substantial evidence, such finding must be sustained "even where substantial evidence may support the plaintiff's position and despite that the court's independent analysis of the evidence may differ from the [Commissioner's]." Rosado v. Sullivan, 805 F. Supp. 147, 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (citation omitted).

B. Determination of Disability

"Every individual who is under a disability shall be entitled to a disability . . . benefit . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1). Disability is defined as the "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment . . . which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." Id. § 423(d)(1)(A). A medically-determinable impairment is an affliction that is so severe that it renders an individual unable to continue with his or her previous work or any other employment that may be available to him or her based upon age, education, and work experience. See id. § 423(d)(2)(A). Such an impairment must be supported by "medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." Id. § 423(d)(3). Additionally, the severity of the impairment is "based on objective medical facts, diagnoses[,] or medical opinions inferable from [the] facts, subjective complaints of pain or disability, and educational background, age, and work experience." Ventura v. Barnhart, No. 04-CV-9018 (NRB), 2006 WL 399458, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2006) (citing Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033, 1037 (2d Cir. 1983)).

The Second Circuit employs a five-step analysis, based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, to determine whether an individual is entitled to disability benefits:

First, the [Commissioner] considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity.

If he [or she] is not, the [Commissioner] next considers whether the claimant has a "severe impairment" which significantly limits his [or her] physical or mental ability to do basic work activities.

If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant hasan impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. If the claimant has such an impairment, the [Commissioner] will consider him [or her] disabled without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience; the [Commissioner] presumes that a claimant who is afflicted with a "listed" impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity.

Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant's severe impairment, he [or she] has the residual functional capacity to perform his [or her] past work.

Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his [or her] past work, the [Commissioner] then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform.

Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (2d Cir. 1982) (spacing added). The plaintiff bears the initial burden of proof to establish each of the first four steps. See DeChirico v. Callahan, 134 F.3d 1177, 1180 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Berry, 675 F.2d at 467). If the inquiry progresses to the fifth step, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to prove that the plaintiff is still able to engage in gainful employment somewhere. Id. (citing Berry, 675 F.2d at 467). "In addition, an ALJ must set forth the crucial factors justifying his findings with sufficient specificity to allow a court to determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision." Barringer v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 358 F. Supp. 2d 67, 72 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Ferraris v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 582, 587 (2d Cir. 1984)).

C. ALJ Decision

Applying the five-step disability sequential evaluation, the ALJ determined that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since October 14, 2014, plaintiff's amended alleged disability onset date. See T. 13, 45. At step two, the ALJ found that plaintiff had the following severe impairments: cervical and lumbar spine degenerativedisc disease, obesity, migraine headaches, depression, and anxiety. See id. at 13. At step three, the ALJ determined that plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See id. at 14. Before reaching step four, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to

Perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except that [she] can perform a low stress job, which is a job that requires occasional decision-making, occasional judgments, and occasional changes in the work setting. [Plaintiff] should be limited to low stress jobs that are goal oriented rather than oriented toward production pace or on an assembly line. [She] should be limited to low stress jobs requiring simple, repetitive instructions. In a low stress job, the individual should have no more than occasional contact with co-workers, supervisors, and the public.

Id. at 17. At step four, the ALJ found that plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work. See id. at 21. At step five, considering plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, and the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined that there were jobs that existed in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform. See id. at 22. Thus, the ALJ determined that plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since October 14, 2014. See id. at 23.

D. Arguments

Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ's RFC determination is not supported by substantial evidence because it fails to account for plaintiff's limitations regarding work-pace and attendance. See Dkt. No. 9 at 14. Plaintiff next argues that the ALJimproperly applied the treating physician rule, failed to adequately weigh the medical opinion evidence, and failed to set forth sufficient analysis of her findings. See id. at 17-23. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to give controlling weight to the medical opinions of her treating physicians with respect to her limitations concerning work-pace and attendance. See id. Finally, plaintiff argues that the step five determination is not supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 23-24. Conversely,...