Gwen G. v. Kijakazi

• Decision Date: 04 February 2022
• Docket Number: 20-CV-6889L
• Citation: 583 F.Supp.3d 450
• Parties: GWEN G., Plaintiff, v. Kilolo KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

583 F.Supp.3d 450

GWEN G., Plaintiff,
v.
Kilolo KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

20-CV-6889L

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed February 4, 2022

583 F.Supp.3d 451

Kenneth R. Hiller, Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller, Amherst, NY, Melissa Marie Kubiak, Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller, PLLC, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff.

Kristina Danielle Cohn, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, New York, NY, Kathryn L. Smith, U.S. Attorney's Office, Rochester, NY, for Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

DAVID G. LARIMER, United States District Judge

Plaintiff appeals from a denial of disability benefits by the acting Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner"). The action is one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the Commissioner's final determination.

On August 8, 2016, plaintiff, then forty-three years old, filed applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, and supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Act, alleging an inability to work as of November 17, 2012 – later amended to August 8, 2016. (Administrative Transcript, Dkt. #13 at 25). Her applications were initially denied. Plaintiff requested a hearing, which was held on September 3, 2019 via videoconference before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Brian Battles. The ALJ issued a partially favorable decision on September 27, 2019, concluding that plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security Act prior to August 22, 2019, but that plaintiff was disabled on that date and thereafter. (Dkt. #13 at 36). That decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied review on September 11, 2020. (Dkt. #13 at 1-3). Plaintiff now appeals.

The plaintiff has moved for judgment remanding the matter for further proceedings (Dkt. #14), and the Commissioner has cross moved (Dkt. #16) for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(c). For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiff's motion is granted, the Commissioner's cross motion is denied, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

DISCUSSION

Determination of whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act follows a well-known five-step sequential evaluation, familiarity with which is presumed. See Bowen v. City of New York , 476 U.S. 467, 470-71, 106 S.Ct. 2022, 90 L.Ed.2d 462 (1986). See 20 CFR §§ 404.1509, 404.1520. The Commissioner's

583 F.Supp.3d 452

decision that a plaintiff is not disabled must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence, and if the ALJ applied the correct legal standards. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ; Machadio v. Apfel , 276 F.3d 103, 108 (2d Cir. 2002).

The ALJ's decision summarizes plaintiff's medical records, which reflect treatment for fibromyalgia, visual impairment, sleep apnea, carpal tunnel syndrome, obesity, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder, which the ALJ concluded together constituted a severe impairment not meeting or equaling a listed impairment. (Dkt. #13 at 28).

Applying the special technique for mental impairments, the ALJ found that plaintiff had a mild limitation in understanding, remembering, or...