Jamil D. v. Kijakazi

• Decision Date: 29 March 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 21-cv-464 (GMH)
• Parties: JAMIL D., [1] Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, [2] Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

JAMIL D., ^[1] Plaintiff,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ^[2] Defendant.

Civil Action No. 21-cv-464 (GMH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

March 29, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

G. MICHAEL HARVEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Jamil D. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action seeking to reverse the final decision of the A Commissioner of Social Security, Kilolo Kijakazi (“Defendant” or “the Commissioner”), den Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits and Disability Insur benefits (“DIB”) under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 40 Plaintiff alleges that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) who adjudicated his claim erre determining that he had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work with additional limitations. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to conduct a functio function analysis in determining his RFC and failed to properly evaluate evidence which c support limitations beyond those reflected in the RFC. The Commissioner argues that the correctly determined Plaintiff's RFC and that no function-by-function analysis is necessary. And

1

even if such an analysis was required, the Commissioner says, the failure to conduct one is no reason for remand. Based on the parties' arguments and review of the record, ^[3] the Court will grant the Commissioner's motion and deny Plaintiff's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

To be eligible for SSI benefits and DIB under the Social Security Act, the Social Security Administration must find a claimant to be “disabled, ” meaning that the individual 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). To make that determination, an ALJ gathers evidence, holds a hearing, takes testimony, and performs the following five step, sequential inquiry of the disability claim:

Step one: whether the claimant is engaging in “substantial gainful activity”;^[4]

Step two: whether the claimant has a “severe” medically-determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments;^[5]

Step three: whether the claimant's impairment is equivalent to one of the disabling

2

impairments listed in the appendix of the relevant regulation, 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (the “Listings”)

After step three, the ALJ determines the claimant's RFC-i.e., the most he or she is able to do notwithstanding his or her physical and mental limitations

Step four: whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing his or her past relevant work;^[6] and

Step five: whether the claimant, in light of his or her age, education, work experience, and RFC, is unable to perform another job available in the national economy.^[7]

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 404.1520; see also Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992, 997 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “An affirmative answer to question 1 or negative answers to questions 2 or 4 result in a determination of no disability. Affirmative answers to questions 3 or 5 establish disability.” Hines v. Bowen, 872 F.2d 56, 58 (4th Cir. 1989).

The claimant bears the burden of proof at the first four steps of the evaluation. Callahan v. Astrue, 786 F.Supp.2d 87, 89 (D.D.C. 2011). At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to identify specific jobs available in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Id. In making this determination, an ALJ may call a vocational expert to testify at the hearing as to whether, based on the claimant's RFC, he or she can perform other work that exists in the national economy. Id. at 90.

3

B. Plaintiff's Disability Claims and Procedural History

Plaintiff was born on May 18, 1978, and completed one year of college. ECF No. 11-3 at 2; ECF No. 11-6 at 4. Plaintiff says he received degree for massage therapy. ECF 11-2 at 40. He has a varied occupational history, having worked as a “mental health technician, cleaner, kitchen helper, construction worker, warehouse supervisor, stocker, and material handler.” ECF 15-1 at 2. Plaintiff last worked in 2017. ECF No. 11-2 at 19.

In January 2018, Plaintiff filed a DIB claim, and added an application for SSI benefits in May 2018. Id. at 16. In those applications, Plaintiff claimed disability status beginning on December 30, 2017, due to a variety of physical impairments: “pain in his low back, right hip, right leg, and right ankle; and numbness and weakness in his right lower extremity due to a gunshot wound.” Id. at 24. Plaintiff's claim was denied in June 2018, and the denial was affirmed in August 2018. Id. at 16. Plaintiff then requested a hearing before an ALJ. Id. At the hearing, held on January 28, 2020, the ALJ took testimony from Plaintiff and a vocational expert. Id.

In his opening statement, Plaintiff's counsel explained that many of Plaintiff's physical impairments could ultimately be traced back to a gunshot wound Plaintiff suffered in 2005. Id. at 38. While Plaintiff was able to return to work following that incident, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2017 that “exacerbated” Plaintiff's existing injuries and spawned new ones. Id. Counsel also stated that Plaintiff had post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and major depressive disorder, both of which cause “significant symptoms.” Id. Counsel then highlighted records reflecting Plaintiff's diminished range of motion and trunk strength and need for frequent rest. Id. at 39.

Plaintiff then testified that he “went through partial college” and obtained a degree for massage therapy. Id. at 40. He also studied “food handling, ” “medicine handling, ” and

4

“behavioral health.” Id. at 40-41. Plaintiff indicated that he last worked as a mental health counselor in 2017. Id. at 41-42. In that role, “was assigned to group homes around the D.C. area” and had “maybe seven clients per house.” Id. at 63. He ensured that those clients ate, took their medication, and completed programming. Id. at 64. Plaintiff also had work experience at a construction company and an events company, as well as a warehouse manager and cleaner, a grocery store packer and stocker, and as a chef in a retail store. Id. at 64-67.

At some point in 2017, Plaintiff was involved in motor vehicle accident, after which he stopped working. Id. at 42-43.^[8] Plaintiff says the accident resulted in back and pelvic pain which required physical therapy in which he “had to learn how to walk . . . again.” Id. at 43. Plaintiff stated that he lived with a friend and the spent most of his day “laying down” because he “can't have too much movement.” Id. at 43-44. The friend who he lives with brings him meals. Id. at 44. He does not assist with household cleaning, shopping, and does not drive, instead using ride-share services to get around. Id. He does still spend time with his family outside the home. Id. at 44-45. Plaintiff also testified that, at the time of the administrative hearing, he was taking several medications, including pain medication and medication related to his mental impairments. Id. at 45-46. Plaintiff also indicated that he smokes marijuana to relieve his pain, and that “it helps.” Id. at 46-47. He later testified that TENS therapy also provides pain relief. Id. at 61.

The ALJ then asked Plaintiff why he thought he was disabled and could not work. Plaintiff responded that he could not “stand for long periods of time or walk, ” had “problems bending over and standing back up, ” and could not “make quick, steady, fast-paced movements” without “more pain.” Id. at 46. Plaintiff also expressed concerns about falling and indicated that he had fallen recently. Id. He stated that he does not use stairs for this reason. Id.

5

In response to questions posed by his attorney, Plaintiff testified that he has pain in his neck that radiates down his back when he breathes heavily or coughs. Id. at 49. The pain is daily, but Plaintiff “get[s] slight relief” from medication. Id. at 50. Plaintiff rated the pain as an 8.5 or 9 out of 10, and testified that it had been ongoing since the motor vehicle accident in 2017. Id. He also stated that he gradually lost the range of motion in his arms and legs. Id. at 51. Plaintiff added that his walking has been abnormal. Id. In addition, he says he was told by his doctors that the bullet wound from 2005 had caused nerve damage. Id. Spinal injections did not remedy those issues, according to Plaintiff. Id.

Plaintiff further testified that he had nerve issues in his right arm. Id. at 51-52. The condition feels “constricting” and can happen “anytime [Plaintiff] sits too long.” Id. at 52. Plaintiff characterized this as his arm “locking up” to the point that he cannot lift it above his shoulder. Id. at 52-53. As a result, he said he had limited use of his right arm and cannot carry objects “heavier than a big cup or a big mug.” Id. Plaintiff said this issue has been “going off and on since [he] got shot” in 2005 and that it has worsened over the years. Id. at 53. Plaintiff has more strength in his left arm, but even using it “causes problem with [his] right side.” Id. at 56. He later testified that the nerve issues sometimes cause “uncontrollable shaking and unsteadiness.” Id. at 63. Overall, “the nerve pain pretty much prevents [him] from just doing a lot of fast movement, picking up things . . . [and] walking.” Id. at 63.

Plaintiff also described back pain that would radiate into his legs. Id. at 53-54. According to Plaintiff, as few as 15 steps could trigger this pain. Id. at 54. He testified he could walk only “maybe 30, 40 strides” per day. Id. at 54-55. He also said the maximum he could stand or sit in place for any one time...