Gibson v. Saul
| Decision Date | 03 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:20-cv-00145 (KAD),3:20-cv-00145 (KAD) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | KENNETH C. GIBSON, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. |
Kenneth Gibson (the "Plaintiff") brings this administrative appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). He seeks to reverse the decision of Defendant Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner"), denying his application for supplemental security income benefits ("SSI") pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act (the "Act"). In the alternative, he seeks a remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The Commissioner opposes the Plaintiff's claims of error and moves to affirm his decision. For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff's motion to reverse (or, in the alternative, to remand) is DENIED and the Commissioner's motion to affirm is GRANTED.
A person is "disabled" under the Act if that person is unable to "engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months." 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). A physical or mental impairment is one "that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." Id. § 1382c(a)(3)(D). In addition, a claimant must establish that his "physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy[.]" Id. § 1382c(a)(3)(B).
Pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Commissioner, a five-step sequential evaluation process is used to determine whether a claimant's condition meets the Act's definition of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920. In brief, the five steps are as follows: (1) the Commissioner determines whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, the Commissioner determines whether the claimant has "a severe medically determinable physical or mental impairment" or combination thereof that "must have lasted or must be expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months;" (3) if such a severe impairment is identified, the Commissioner next determines whether the medical evidence establishes that the claimant's impairment "meets or equals" an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations; (4) if the claimant does not establish the "meets or equals" requirement, the Commissioner must then determine the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform his past relevant work; and (5) if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the Commissioner must next determine whether there is other work in the national economy that the claimant can perform in light of his RFC and his education, age, and work experience. Id. §§ 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v); 416.909. The claimant bears the burden of proof with respect to Step One through Step Four, while the Commissioner bears the burden of proof as to Step Five. McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146, 150 (2d Cir. 2014).
It is well-settled that a district court will reverse the decision of the Commissioner only when it is based upon legal error or when it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. See, e.g., Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 374-75 (2d Cir. 2015) (per curiam); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (). Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotations marks and citation omitted). "In determining whether the agency's findings were supported by substantial evidence, the reviewing court is required to examine the entire record, including contradictory evidence and evidence from which conflicting inferences can be drawn." Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "Under this standard of review, absent an error of law, a court must uphold the Commissioner's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if the court might have ruled differently." Campbell v. Astrue, 596 F. Supp. 2d 446, 448 (D. Conn. 2009). The court must therefore "defer to the Commissioner's resolution of conflicting evidence," Cage v. Comm'r of Social Sec., 692 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2012), and can only reject the Commissioner's findings of fact "if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise," Brault v. Social Sec. Admin., 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Stated simply, "[i]f there is substantial evidence to support the [Commissioner's] determination, it must be upheld." Selian, 708 F.3d at 417.
On October 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed an application for SSI pursuant to Title XVI of the Act, alleging an onset date of September 1, 2016. (Tr. 412.) He later amended the alleged onset date to October 1, 2016. (See Tr. 215-16.) Plaintiff's claim was denied initially on February 16,2017 (Tr. 296) and on reconsideration on December 6, 2017. (Tr. 310.) A hearing was thereafter conducted before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") John T. Molleur on October 29, 2018. (See Tr. 209.) On November 15, 2018, ALJ Molleur issued a written decision denying Plaintiff's application for SSI. (See Tr. 13-26.)
In his decision, ALJ Molleur followed the sequential evaluation process for assessing disability claims. At Step One, the ALJ found that Plaintiff has not been engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of his disability. (Tr. 18.) At Step Two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has severe medically determinable impairments consisting of fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease in the lumbar spine, bipolar II disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and opioid related disorder. (Tr. 18.) At Step Three, the ALJ concluded that none of Plaintiff's severe impairments met or medically equaled a listed impairment in Subpart P, Appendix 1 at 20 C.F.R. Part 404. (Tr. 18.) The ALJ also considered the Plaintiff's fibromyalgia under Social Security Ruling ("SSR") 12-2p. (Tr. 18-19.) At Step Four, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the RFC "to perform sedentary work . . . except the claimant must avoid climbing ladders, ropes, and scaffolds." (Tr. 20.) The ALJ further found that:
Other postural activities are limited to no more than occasionally. He must avoid work at unprotected heights. He should have no close proximity to mobile machinery or exposed moving machinery parts. The work should be restricted to that requiring only simple instructions and routine and repetitive tasks. He must avoid tandem or other team oriented type work. The work should involve no more than brief and incidental contact with members of the general public.
(Tr. 20.) Plaintiff did not have any past relevant work that the ALJ found he could assess at Step Four. (Tr. 24-25.) At Step Five, the ALJ held that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform, such as a Final Assembler, Document Preparer, and Table Worker. (Tr. 25-26.) The ALJ accordingly determined that Plaintiff has not been disabled since the alleged onset date of October 1, 2016. (Tr. 26.)
The Appeals Council declined Plaintiff's request for review on December 6, 2019, rendering final the ALJ's decision. (Tr. 1.) This appeal followed.
As an initial matter the Court notes that the record before the ALJ did not include certain medical records which were submitted by the Plaintiff in connection with his request for Appeals Council review. (See Tr. 32-208.) Some of these records postdate the ALJ's decision of November 15, 2018. As the Commissioner explains, the Appeals Council considered the new records that predated the ALJ's decision and concluded that "this evidence does not show a reasonable probability that it would change the outcome of the decision." (Tr. 2; see also Def.'s Mem. at 5-6 n. 2.) The Appeals Council further found that the records from after November 15, 2018 did not relate to the disability period at issue and indicated that the Plaintiff would need to submit a new claim for SSI if he wished to be considered disabled during this more recent period. (Tr. 2.)
"While a district court can consider new evidence when reviewing an ALJ decision, remand is warranted only upon a showing that the evidence is new and material, and that there is good cause for failure to timely submit it." Yucekus v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 829 F. App'x 553, 557 (2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2020) (summary order) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Pollard v. Halter, 377 F.3d 183, 193 (2d Cir. 2004)). New "evidence is material if it is 'both relevant to the claimant's condition during the time period for which benefits were denied and probative . . . The concept of materiality requires, in addition, a reasonable possibility that the new evidence would have influenced the [Commissioner] to decide the claimant's application differently.'" Milano v. Apfel, 98 F. Supp. 2d 209, 215 (D. Conn. 2000) (quoting Tirado v. Bowen, 842 F.2d 595, 597 (2d Cir. 1988)). This Court must therefore "review the entire administrative record, which includes thenew evidence, and determine, as in every case, whether there is substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial