Edwards v. Berryhill, 17-CV-1247F (consent)
| Decision Date | 03 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | 17-CV-1247F (consent) |
| Parties | NATHAN BERNARD EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
DECISION and ORDER
APPEARANCES:
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KENNETH R. HILLER and
TIMOTHY HILLER, of Counsel
Amherst, New York 14226
JAMES P. KENNEDY, JR.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Attorney for Defendant
Federal Centre
138 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14202
and
PADMA GHATAGE
Special Assistant United States Attorney, of Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of General Counsel
26 Federal Plaza - Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
and
LAURA RIDGELL BOLTZ, and
MARC THAYNE WARNER
Special Assistant United States Attorney, of Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of General Counsel
1961 Stout Street, Suite 4169
Denver, Colorado 80294
On June 19, 2018, the parties to this action, consented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to proceed before the undersigned. (Dkt. 7). The matter is presently before the court on motions for judgment on the pleadings filed by Plaintiff on September 10, 2018 (Dkt. 9), and by Defendant on November 9, 2018 (Dkt. 11).
Plaintiff Nathan Bernard Edwards ("Plaintiff"), brings this action under the Social Security Act ("the Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying Plaintiff's application filed with the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), on June 23, 2009, for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Act ("SSI" or "disability benefits"), alleging he became disabled on February 3, 2009, by right hip and low back injury, high blood pressure, gout, and high cholesterol ("initial application"), which conditions caused Plaintiff to stop working on May 28, 2009. AR2 at 113-16, 137-38. Plaintiff's initial application was denied on September 25, 2009, AR at 66-70, and on October 2, 2009, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge. AR at 74-76. On February 24, 2011, a hearing ("first administrative hearing"), was held in Buffalo, New York before administrative law judge William E. Straub ("ALJ Straub"). AR at 28-52. Appearing and testifying at the first administrative hearing were Plaintiff, with legal counsel Melissa Pezzino, Esq. Id. On March 14, 2011, ALJ Straub rendered his decision ("First ALJDecision"), denying the initial application. AR at 14-27. On May 9, 2011, Plaintiff requested review of the First ALJ Decision by the Appeals Council. AR at 11. On November 29, 2011, the Appeals Council issued a decision denying Plaintiff's request for review, rendering the First ALJ Decision the Commissioner's final decision. AR at 2-7. On January 30, 2012, Plaintiff commenced an action in this court challenging the Commissioner's decision denying him disability benefits. On March 28, 2013, the district court remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a new hearing, see Edwards v. Astrue, No. 12-CV-83S, slip op. at 6-7 (Dkt. 10) (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2013); AR at 568-74, and on July 9, 2013, the Commissioner remanded the matter to the ALJ with instructions to obtain additional evidence regarding Plaintiff's impairments and to hold another administrative hearing. AR at 575-79. Accordingly, on June 5, 2014, a second administrative hearing ("second administrative hearing"), was held in Buffalo, New York before ALJ Stanley A. Moskal ("ALJ Moskal").3 See AR at 583. Appearing and testifying at the second administrative hearing were Plaintiff, with legal counsel Kelly Laga, Esq., and vocational expert ("VE") Rachel A. Duchon ("VE Duchon"). AR at 583. In a decision dated February 24, 2015 ("Second ALJ Decision"), ALJ Moskal denied the initial application. AR at 583-93. On March 27, 2015, Plaintiff sought review of the Second ALJ Decision by the Appeals Council. AR at 737-39. On April 11, 2016, the Appeals Council remanded the matter to the ALJ for a new hearing. AR at 600-01. On June 17, 2017, a third administrative hearing ("third administrative hearing"), was held in Buffalo, New York before ALJ Melissa Lin Jones ("ALJ Jones" or "the ALJ"). AR at 497-545. Appearing and testifying at the second administrative hearing were Plaintiff, with legal counsel Kelly Laga-Sciandra, and vocational expert ("VE"), Jeane Bechler ("VE Bechler"). Id. In a decision rendered September 22, 2017 ("Third ALJ Decision"), ALJ Jones found Plaintiff was disabled as of October 4, 2016, but not before. AR at 472-496. On December 1, 2017, Plaintiff commenced the instant action seeking judicial review of the Third ALJ Decision insofar as Plaintiff was awarded disability benefits only as of October 4, 2016.
On September 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 9) ("Plaintiff's Motion"), attaching the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 9-1) ("Plaintiff's Memorandum"). On November 9, 2018, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 11) ("Defendant's Motion"), attaching Defendant's Brief in Support of the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and in Response to Plaintiff's Brief Pursuant to Local Standing Order on Social Security Cases (Dkt. 11-1) ("Defendant's Memorandum"). On November 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Reply Brief (Dkt. 12) ("Plaintiff's Reply"). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary.
Based on the following, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED; Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Nathan Bernard Edwards ("Plaintiff"), born October 5, 1961, was 47 years old as of his asserted disability onset date of February 3, 2009. AR at 113, 156.Plaintiff is a high school graduate and was in regular classes, AR at 33-34, 143, obtained vocational training as a firefighter in the military, AR at 34, and has past relevant work experience as a cable installer, construction worker, cook, ham cutter, and roofer, AR at 139, and served as a firefighter in the military for 16 years. AR at 139. Plaintiff never married and lives with his sister. AR at 161-62, 505.
A claimant is "disabled" within the meaning of the Act and entitled to disability benefits when she is unable "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." 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i)(1); 1382c(a)(3)(A). A district court may set aside the Commissioner's determination that a claimant is not disabled if the factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision is based on legal error. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 105-06 (2d Cir. 2003). In reviewing a final decision of the SSA, a district court "is limited to determining whether the SSA's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence in the record and were based on a correct legal standard." Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Id. It is not, however, the district court's function to make a de novo determination as to whether the claimant is disabled; rather,"the reviewing court is required to examine the entire record, including contradictory evidence and evidence from which conflicting inferences can be drawn" to determine whether the SSA's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Id. "Congress has instructed . . . that the factual findings of the Secretary,5 if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." Rutherford v. Schweiker, 685 F.2d60, 62 (2d Cir. 1982).
The applicable regulations set forth a five-step analysis the Commissioner must follow in determining eligibility for disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. See Bapp v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 1986); Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1982). If the claimant meets the criteria at any of the five steps, the inquiry ceases and the claimant is not eligible for disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. The first step is to determine whether the applicant is engaged in substantial gainful activity ("SGA") during the period for which the benefits are claimed. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b) and 416.920(b). The second step is whether the applicant has a severe impairment which significantly limits the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, as defined in the relevant regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). Third, if there is an impairment and the impairment, or its equivalent, is listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 of the regulations ("Appendix 1" or "the Listings"), and meets the duration requirement,6 there is a presumption of inability to perform SGA and the claimant is deemed disabled regardlessof age, education, or work experience. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) and 1382a(c)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and 416.920(d). As a fourth step, however, if the impairment or its equivalent is not listed in Appendix 1, the Commissioner must then consider the applicant's "residual functional capacity" ("RFC"), which is the ability to perform physical or mental work activities on a sustained basis, notwithstanding the limitations posed by the applicant's collective impairments, see 20 C.F.R. 404.1520(e)-(f), and 416.920(e)-(f), and the demands of any past relevant work ("PRW"). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e) and 416.920(e). If the applicant remains capable of performing PRW, disability benefits will be denied, id., but if the applicant is unable to perform PRW relevant work, the Commissioner, at the fifth step, must consider whether, given the applicant's age, education, and past work...
To continue reading
Request your trial