Kaya v. Kijakazi
| Decision Date | 22 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action H-21-2176 |
| Parties | Filiz Ari Kaya, Plaintiff, v. Kilolo Kijakazi,[1] Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Filiz Ari Kaya appeals the Social Security Administration (SSA) Commissioner's final decision denying her application for social security benefits. ECF No. 1. Pending before the court is Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 14, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16. Having considered the motions, administrative record, and applicable law, the court recommends that the final decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.
Kaya applied for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI) on December 10, 2019. Tr 228-35. Kaya claimed that she became disabled on July 16 2016, due to chronic pain, anemia, neuropathy, morbid obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and vertigo. Tr. 104-05, 118-19. On reconsideration, Kaya claimed she suffered from vertigo, high blood pressure, bipolar disorder, neuropathy, chronic pain, obesity, social phobia, anemia, diabetes, high cholesterol, and Bell's Palsy. Tr. 150.
Kaya was bom on January 20, 1972, and was forty-eight years old on the disability onset date. Tr. 22, 84, 228. Kaya obtained an associate's degree in “allied health.” Tr. 84, 568. Prior to the alleged onset date of her disability, Kaya worked as a fast-food manager, restaurant manager, administrative aide, secretary, and assembly line worker. Tr. 85-88,146-47. Kaya has not worked since June 22,2018. Tr. 89, 147.
The SSA denied Kaya's applications on March 26, 2020. Tr. 117, 131, 166- 67. Kaya sought reconsideration, and the applications were again denied on July 7, 2020. Tr. 170,171-76. Kaya sought a hearing, and ALJ Gerald Meyer held a hearing by telephone on December 1,2020. Tr. 81-103,170. The ALJ heard testimony from Kaya and a vocational expert (VE). Tr. 81-103. Kaya was represented by an attorney. Tr. 83.
The ALJ questioned Kaya and the VE regarding her work history. Kaya testified that she was a restaurant manager, an administrative aide, and an assembly line worker. Tr. 85-89. After exploring Kaya's duties and activities in those jobs, the VE classified Kaya's past relevant work as administrative clerk, small products assembler, and restaurant manager. Tr. 86-90.
Kaya testified that she was unable to continue working as an assembly worker because the medication she was using “slow[ed] her down” and made her “sleepy and tired.” Tr. 90-91. Kaya testified that she was on eight medications when she stopped working. Tr. 94. Kaya testified that the side effects of her medications required her to take more breaks than other employees and made performing her job difficult. Tr. 94. Kaya also testified that she could neither sit nor stand for long periods and needed to elevate her legs at work. Tr. 94. Kaya testified that she was taking eleven medications at the time of the hearing. Tr. 93.
Kaya testified that she had been diagnosed with diabetes and hypertension. Tr. 91. She also testified that she suffered from anemia and Bell's Palsy, the latter of which caused constant watering in her left eye making her vision blurry. Tr. at 91, 93. Kaya testified that she would get dizzy when bending over and could not “use” her feet. Id. She also suffered from balance issues caused by diagnosed vertigo and therefore had to lay down for most of the day. Tr. 94-95. Kaya testified that she took prescription medicine for her vertigo but did not know if it would improve. Tr. 9596. Kaya further testified that she had chronic pain in her legs and feet and suffered from swelling in her arms, ankles, and fingers, which made them painful, numb, and hard to move. Tr. 92-93.
Kaya testified that she was treated for chronic leg pain by Drs. Kozhaya Sokhon and Nihal Siddiqui. Tr. 92. The ALJ noted that medical records related to her prescribed medications were missing from the record. Tr. 95-96. The ALJ held the record open until December 14, 2020, to ensure the records were included. Tr. 95-97. Kaya testified that a gap in her treatment with Dr. Siddiqui was due to her seeing other specialists including a rheumatologist. Tr. 98. Kaya's attorney clarified that she had not seen Dr. Siddiqui since May 20, 2020. Tr. 99.
The ALJ asked the VE whether an individual could perform Kaya's past work if the person: could lift or carry ten pounds frequently and twenty pounds occasionally; could stand and walk six or sit hours in an eight hour work day with normal breaks; could occasionally use ramps and stairs, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl; could not balance; could not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; could not use dangerous machinery or be near unprotected heights; could understand, remember, and carry out detailed but not complex instructions; should do only routine and repetitive work, without frequent changes in duties; and should have no forced pace or assembly line work. Tr. 99-100. The VE said the person could perform Kaya's past work of administrative clerk. Tr. 100. The VE also testified that such an individual could perform work as a file clerk, general clerk, and supply clerk. Id.
On cross-examination, the VE testified that an individual with limitations the ALJ specified who could also stand or walk for only two hours during a normal workday could not maintain any of the jobs indicated. Tr. 101. The VE further stated that adding the need “to elevate their legs about hip-level for two hours per day, during the normal eight-hour workday” would preclude any competitive employment. Id. According to the VE there are no jobs in the national economy for a person who would be absent from work more than four days per month on a continuing, consistent basis. Id. The VE testified that an individual who would need to take a break every sixty minutes to walk around and leave the job beyond the three normal workday breaks would not be able to perform any jobs in the national economy. Tr. 102. Finally, the VE testified that there are no jobs in the national economy for a person who would need to lie down two hours per day during the workday.
ALJ Meyer issued a decision on January 7, 2021, finding that Kaya was not disabled from July 16, 2018, through the date of the decision. Tr. 20-35. Kaya filed a request for review of the ALJ's decision. Tr. 220-21. On July 7, 2021, the Appeals Council denied review after considering supplemental evidence Kaya submitted after the decision. Tr. 1-13. Kaya timely filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis in federal court on June 25, 2021. See Kaya v. Saul, H-21-mc-2176, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Tex. June 25, 2021).
The Social Security Act provides disability insurance benefits to individuals with physical and mental disabilities who have contributed to the program and provides supplemental security income to individuals with physical and mental disabilities who have limited income and resources. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 423, 1382. Disability is defined as the “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment. .. 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); see also 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A).
The Commissioner uses a sequential, five-step approach to determine whether the claimant is disabled. See Schofield v. Saul, 950 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 2020); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4) (2019). The claimant bears the burden of proof on the first four steps, but the Commissioner bears the burden on the fifth step. See Keel v. Saul, 986 F.3d 551, 555 (5th Cir. 2021). A finding that the claimant is disabled or not disabled at any point in the five-step review terminates the analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4), 416.920(a)(4) (2019).
This court's review of the ALJ's disability determination is “highly deferential,” and the court asks “only whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the correct legal standards were employed.” Garcia v. Berryhill, 880 F.3d 700, 704 (5th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). “A decision is supported by substantial evidence if ‘credible evidentiary choices or medical findings support the decision.'” Salmond v. Berryhill, 892 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2018) . “Substantial evidence is ‘more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance.'” Id. (quoting Williams v. Admin. Rev. Bd, 376 F.3d 471, 476 (5th Cir. 2004)). “It means-and means only-‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'” Biestekv. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148,1154 (2019) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197,229 (1938)). The reviewing court must scrutinize the record to determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision. See Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 461 (5th Cir. 2005).
When Kaya requested review of the ALJ's decision by the Appeals Council, she submitted as additional evidence Dr. Siddiqui's treatment notes dated November 12, 2020, to December 4, 2020, and Muhammad Imran, M.D.'s treatment notes dated June 3, 2020, to October 15, 2020. Tr. 2. The Appeals Council found, “this evidence does not show a reasonable probability that it would change the outcome of the decision,” and therefore denied Kaya's request for review. Tr. 1-4.
Subject to a showing of good cause, the Appeals Council reviews a case when it “receives...
To continue reading
Request your trial