Karen P. v. Kijakazi

• Decision Date: 29 November 2021
• Docket Number: Civil Action 8:20-CV-0841 (DNH/DEP)
• Parties: KAREN P., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, [1] Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

KAREN P., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ^[1] Defendant.

Civil Action No. 8:20-CV-0841 (DNH/DEP)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

November 29, 2021

APPEARANCES:

FOR PLAINTIFF SCHNEIDER & PALCSIK.

FOR DEFENDANT SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN.

OF COUNSEL:

MARK A. SCHNEIDER, ESQ.

JAMES J. NAGELBERG, ESQ.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DAVID E. PEEBLES, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff has commenced this proceeding, pursuant to 42 U.S.C §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), to challenge a determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) finding that she was not disabled at the relevant times and, accordingly, ineligible for the supplemental security income (“SSI”) benefits for which she has applied. The matter has been referred to me for the issuance of a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Northern District of New York Local Rule 72.3. For the reasons set forth below, I recommend a finding that the Commissioner's determination resulted from the application of proper legal principles and is supported by substantial evidence.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was born in April of 1965, and is currently fifty-six years of age. She was fifty-two years old at the time of her application for benefits in January of 2018. Plaintiff stands five-foot and six inches in height, and weighs approximately two hundred and seventeen pounds. Plaintiff resides in an apartment with her husband and stepson in Champlain, New York.

Plaintiff has a high school education and has achieved an associate's degree in financial services. She is able to read, write, do simple math and handle money. Plaintiff reports that she stopped working in December 2007. Prior to that time, she worked as both a cashier and a cashier supervisor in a supermarket.

Physically, plaintiff alleges that she suffers from tendonitis in her wrists, chronic lower back pain, arthritis in both knees, and migraines. Plaintiff uses a brace on her left wrist and a brace for her right knee. She had a left first extensor compartment release surgery in April of 2018. She has also undergone multiple steroid injections for her back and knee, osteopathic manipulation, and physical therapy, which she has reported as providing good relief from her pain. During the relevant period, plaintiff treated for her physical impairments with the University of Vermont Health Network and Champlain Family Health.

Mentally, plaintiff alleges that she suffers from depression and anxiety. Plaintiff has received treatment in the form of therapy and medication. Plaintiff has treated for her mental impairments during the relevant period with Clinton County Mental Health and North Country Behavioral Medicine.

Plaintiff has been prescribed several medications over time including, though not limited to, Advil, Cymbalta, Paxil, Imitrex, Prazosin, Levothyroxine, and Trazadone.

Plaintiff has reported that she is able to cook basic meals, fold laundry, shop, watch television, and dress herself but needs help with things like shoes and bras. She cannot write or type with her left hand, do dishes, hold things, carry things, do laundry, or vacuum. She enjoys doing crafts such as plastic canvas embroidery, which she can do a few times per week for 30 to 45 minutes at one time. She also helps teach at a Sunday school program approximately twice per month for an hour. Plaintiff takes care of her grandchild for two months during the summer, which includes baking cookies with him, doing jigsaw puzzles with him, and listening to him read. She has reported having difficulty climbing stairs due to her knee, but walks approximately a mile three times per week. According to plaintiff, she is emotional and has days where she cannot get out of bed because of depression.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Proceedings Before the Agency

Plaintiff applied for SSI payments under Title XVI of the Social Security Act on January 3, 2018. In support of that application, she claimed to be disabled due to depression, anxiety, migraines, arthritis, lower back pain and spondylosis, numbness in her right foot, thyroid issues, insomnia, vitamin D deficiency, epilepsy, and tendinitis in both wrists.

A video hearing was conducted on July 19, 2019, by ALJ Brian LeCours, to address plaintiff's application. Following that hearing, ALJ LeCours issued an unfavorable decision on August 19, 2019. That opinion became a final determination of the agency on July 15, 2020, when the Social Security Appeals Council (“Appeals Council”) denied plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's decision.

B. The ALJ's Decision

In his decision, ALJ LeCours applied the familiar, five-step sequential test for determining disability. At step one, he found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity during the relevant period. The ALJ next found at step two that plaintiff suffers from severe impairments that impose more than minimal limitations on her ability to perform basic work functions, including lumbar and thoracic degenerative disc disease, DeQuervain's tenosynovitis status-post left first extensor release surgery, migraine headaches, right radial neuropathy, and right knee degenerative joint disease/arthritis. As part of his step two finding, ALJ LeCours found that plaintiff's seizures and mental impairments are not severe.

At step three, ALJ LeCours examined the governing regulations of the Commissioner setting forth presumptively disabling conditions (the “Listings”), see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, and concluded that plaintiff's conditions do not meet or medically equal any of the listed, presumptively disabling conditions set forth in the Commissioner's regulations, although he did not discuss any specific listings.

ALJ LeCours next surveyed the available record evidence and concluded that plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform a range of light work, ^[2] as defined by the controlling regulations, with the following exceptions:

she can frequently stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl and climb ramps and stairs, but can never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds, and must avoid exposure to extremely loud work environments, further defined as above Noise Intensity Level 4, and the claimant should avoid exposure to hazardous conditions such as unprotected heights and dangerous machinery.

ALJ LeCours went on to step four to conclude that plaintiff is able to perform the demands of her past relevant work as a cashier checker, based on his RFC determination. Proceeding to step five, the ALJ found, in the alternative, that the additional postural and environmental limitations set forth in the RFC do not preclude plaintiff from performing other work in the national economy, citing, as in representative jobs, an office helper, a router, and a photocopying machine operator. Based upon these findings, ALJ LeCours concluded that plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times.

C. This Action

Plaintiff commenced this action on July 27, 2020.^[3] In support of her challenge to the ALJ's determination, plaintiff raises several arguments, contending that (1) the ALJ erred in failing to afford great weight to the opinions from the treating and examining sources such as Physician's Assistant (“PA”) Julie Steele-Goodwin, consultative examiner Dr. Nader Wassef, and consultative examiner Dr. Brett Hartman, failing to specify the weight he afforded to opinions from therapist Amy Weir or PA Jennifer Kenaly, and failing to recontact any source to clarify ambiguities in any of their opinions; (2) the ALJ erred in determining that plaintiff should not be found to be disabled under the Medical Vocational Guidelines (“Grids”) Rules 201.12 and 201.14 by failing to find that plaintiff was limited to sedentary work; (3) the ALJ erred in finding that plaintiff had the ability to perform light work because he failed to appropriately consider her pain, her obesity, and the limitations imposed by her hand and wrist impairments; (4) the ALJ failed to properly consider her mental functioning in combination with her other impairments and failed to find her mental impairments severe at step two; and (5) the ALJ misinterpreted the evidence and erred in failing to credit her reports of pain and mental symptoms despite the record evidence that substantiates those reports. Plaintiff also argues that the court should consider the record in its entirety and examine the evidence from both sides when reviewing the ALJ's decision and should not apply a “very deferential” standard of review, as argued for by the Commissioner.

Oral argument was conducted in this matter, by telephone, on November 17, 2021, at which time decision was reserved. III. DISCUSSION

A. Scope of Review

A court's review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) of a final decision by the Commissioner is subject to a “very deferential” standard of review, and is limited to analyzing whether the correct legal standards were applied, and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012); Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 586 (2d Cir. 2002); Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 2000); Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1998). Where there is reasonable doubt as to whether an ALJ has applied the proper legal standards, the decision should not be affirmed even though the ultimate conclusion reached is arguably supported by substantial evidence. Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 986 (2d Cir. 1987). If, however, the correct legal standards have been applied, and the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence, those findings are conclusive, and the decision will withstand judicial scrutiny...