Handwerk v. Kijakazi

• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-01425
• Decision Date: 18 September 2023
• Citation: 692 F.Supp.3d 458
• Parties: Julia A. HANDWERK, Plaintiff, v. Kilolo KIJAKAZI, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

692 F.Supp.3d 458

Julia A. HANDWERK, Plaintiff, v. Kilolo KIJAKAZI, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-01425

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Signed September 18, 2023

David F. Chermol, Chermol & Fishman, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Timothy S. Judge, U.S. Attorney's Office - Civil Litigation Units, Scranton, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, Chief United States Magistrate Judge

This is an action brought under Section 1383(c) of the Social Security Act and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (hereinafter, "the Commissioner") denying Plaintiff Julia A. Handwerk ("Handwerk")'s claims for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and supplemental security income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). The parties have consent to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 11). For the reasons expressed herein, and upon detailed consideration of the arguments raised by the parties in their respective briefs, the Commissioner's decision shall be VACATED and REMANDED.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 14, 2010, Plaintiff Handwerk protectively filed applications for Title II benefits alleging disability beginning September 2, 2007, due to fibromyalgia, depression, diabetes, and anxiety. (Doc. 13-2, at 13). The Social Security Administration ("SSA") initially denied Handwerk's application on January 10, 2011, prompting Handwerk's request for a hearing, which was held before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Therese A. Hardiman on May 3, 2012. (Doc. 13-2, at 24-47). In a written decision dated June 28, 2012, the ALJ determined that Handwerk was not disabled and, therefore, not entitled to the benefits sought. (Doc. 13-2, at 13-19). Handwerk appealed the decision to the Appeals Counsel, who denied her request for review on September 27, 2013. (Doc. 13-9, at 2-5).

Thereafter, on November 25, 2013, Handwerk filed a complaint in the United District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking judicial review of the ALJ's unfavorable decision. Handwerk v. Colvin, No. 3:13-CV-2860 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 25, 2013), ECF No. 1. On October 24, 2013, the undersigned issued a report recommending that ALJ Hardiman's June 2012 decision be vacated and the case remanded to the Commissioner to conduct a new administrative hearing. Handwerk v. Colvin, No. 3:13-CV-2860 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2014), ECF No. 13. The Commissioner waived objections. Handwerk v. Colvin, No. 3:13-CV-2860 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2013), ECF No. 14. On November 10, 2014, United States District Judge William J. Nealon issued a Memorandum Opinion, and Order adopting the undersigned's recommendation. Handwerk v. Colvin, No. 3:13-CV-2860 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2014), ECF Nos. 15, 16. On December 19, 2014, the Appeals Counsel remanded the case to the ALJ for further administrative proceedings in accordance with the fourth sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 13-9, at 45).

On June 9, 2015, ALJ Hardiman held a second administrative hearing. (Doc. 13-8, at 100). In a written decision dated February 17, 2016, the ALJ again found Handwerk was not disabled and denied her application for benefits. (Doc. 13-9, at 49-63). Handwerk requested review of ALJ Hardiman's second decision denying her application for benefits. (Doc. 13-9, at 69). On October 7, 2016, the Appeals Council found that the ALJ sis not state an adequate basis for denying the claim at step two and remanded Handwerk's case to be heard by a new Administrative Law Judge with the following instructions:

• Further evaluate [Handwerk]'s alleged symptoms and provide rationale in accordance with the disability regulations pertaining to evaluation of symptoms (20 CFR 404.1529 and Social Security Ruling 16-3p).

• Give further consideration to the severity and limiting effects, if any, of [Handwerk]'s alleged fibromyalgia consistent with the guidance of Social Security Ruling 12-2p.

• Further, if necessary, obtain evidence from a medical expert to clarify the nature and severity of [Handwerk]'s impairments (20 CFR 404.1527(e) and Social Security Ruling 96-6p).

(Doc. 13-9, at 72-73).

On February 16, 2017, Handwerk appeared and testified at a third administrative hearing, this time in front of ALJ Jarrod Tranguch. (Doc. 13-8, at 65-99). On June 28, 2017, ALJ Tranguch issued the third decision denying Handwerk's application for benefits. (Doc. 13-9, at 79-90). Handwerk requested review of the third decision denying her application for benefits, and on January 11, 2019, the Appeals Council vacated the ALJ's decision for failing to adequately consider Handwerk's subjective symptoms or adequately evaluate the opinion of Dr. James Ross, and remanded the case with the following instructions:

• Further evaluate [Handwerk]'s alleged symptoms and provide rationale in accordance with the disability regulations pertaining to evaluation of symptoms (20 CFR 404.1529).

• Further consider [Handwerk]'s maximum residual functional capacity and provide appropriate rationale with specific references to evidence of record in support of the assessed limitations (20 CFR 404.1545 and Social Security Ruling 85-16 and 96-8p). In so doing, evaluate the treating source opinion in accordance with the provisions of 20 CFR 404.1527 and explain the weight given to such opinion evidence. As appropriate, the Administrative Law Judge may request the treating source provide additional evidence and/or further clarification of the opinion (20 CFR 404.1520b).

• If warranted by the expanded record, obtain supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on [Handwerk]'s occupational base (Social Security Ruling 83-12, 83-14, and 85-15). The hypothetical questions should reflect the specific capacity/limitations established by the record as a whole. The [ALJ] will ask the vocational expert to identify examples of appropriate jobs and to state the incidence of such jobs in the national economy (20 CFR 404.1566). Further, before relying on the vocational expert evidence the [ALJ] will identify and resolve any conflicts between the occupational evidence provided by the vocational expert and information in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) and its companion publication, the Selected Characteristics of Occupations (Social Security Ruling 00-4p).

(Doc. 13-9, at 101).

However, because Handwerk's insured status expired over six years before the 2017 ALJ decision was issued, it did not require that a new hearing be held unless Handwerk demonstrated to the ALJ that "the facts of the case warrant[ed] another hearing." (Doc. 13-9, at 100-01). ALJ Tranguch concluded that there was no need to conduct a fourth administrative hearing. (Doc. 13-8, at 139). In a written decision dated April 24, 2019, ALJ Tranguch issued a fourth decision finding Handwerk was not disabled and denying Handwerk's application for benefits. (Doc. 13-8, at 8-25).

On August 19, 2019, Handwerk filed a second complaint in the Middle District seeking judicial review of the ALJ's unfavorable decision. Handwerk v. Saul, No. 4:19-CV-1439 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2019), ECF No. 1. On October 4, 2020, the Court vacated the ALJ's decision and remanded for further administrative proceedings. Handwerk v. Saul, No. 4:19-CV-1439 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2019), ECF Nos. 33, 34. On October 16, 2020, the Appeals Council vacated the ALJ's decision and remanded the case to an ALJ for further proceedings. (Doc. 13-15, at 111). Noting that Handwerk filed subsequent claims for Title XVI disability benefits on July 27, 2017, and November 20, 2019, the Appeals Council directed the ALJ to consolidate the claims filed, associate the evidence, and issue a new decision on the consolidated claims in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 416.1452 and HALLEX I-1-10-10. (Doc. 13-15, at 111).

On July 29, 2021, a fourth hearing was held in front of ALJ Timothy Wing. (Doc. 13-14, at 50). In a written decision dated September 9, 2021, ALJ Wing found that Handwerk was not disabled and, therefore, denied her application for benefits. (Doc. 13-14, at 18). Handwerk appeals the decision to the Appeals Counsel, who denied her request for review on August 8, 2022. (Doc. 13-14, at 2).

On September 12, 2022, Handwerk filed the instant action. (Doc. 1). The Commissioner responded on November 21, 2022, providing the requisite transcripts from the disability proceedings. (Doc. 12; Doc. 13). The parties then filed their respective briefs, with Handwerk arguing four main errors warrant reversal or remand. (Doc. 14; Doc. 16; Doc. 18).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In order to receive benefits under Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act, a claimant must demonstrate an "inability 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 12 months." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A). To satisfy this requirement, a claimant must have a severe physical or mental impairment¹ that makes it impossible to do his or her previous work or any other substantial gainful activity that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1505(a), 416.905(a). Additionally, to be eligible to receive benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, a claimant must be insured for disability insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a); 20 C.F.R. §404.131.

A. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

In evaluating whether a claimant is disabled as defined in the Social Security Act, the Commissioner follows a five-step sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a), 416.920(a). Under this process, the Commissioner must...