Kinal v. Saul, 18-CV-00673-LGF
| Decision Date | 23 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | 18-CV-00673-LGF |
| Parties | GREGORY JEROME KINAL Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
DECISION and ORDER
(consent)
APPEARANCES:
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH R. HILLER
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TIMOTHY HILLER, of Counsel
Suite 1A
Amherst, New York 14226
JAMES P. KENNEDY, JR.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Attorney for Defendant
ELLIE DOROTHY
Assistant United States Attorney, of Counsel
Federal Centre
138 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14202, and
ELLEN E. SOVERN
Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region II
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel
601 E. 12th Street
Room 965
Kansas City, MO 64106, and
FRANK D. TANKARD
United States Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel, of Counsel
26 Federal Plaza
Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
On July 9, 2019, this case was reassigned to the undersigned before whom the parties consented pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to proceed in accordance with this Court's June 29, 2018 Standing Order. (Dkt. No. 15). The court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter is presently before the court on motions for judgment on the pleadings, filed on January 11, 2019, by Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 9), and on March 6, 2019, by Defendant (Dkt. No. 12).
Plaintiff Gregory Jerome Kinal ("Plaintiff"), brings this action pursuant to the Social Security Act ("the Act"), seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner" or "Defendant") decision denying his application for Social Security Disability Insurance ("SSDI") under Title II of the Act ("disability benefits"). Plaintiff, born on November 30, 1954 (R. 159),2 alleges that he became disabled on October 31, 2015, when he stopped working as a result of ankylosing spondylitis, depression, and iritis (inflammation of the iris of the eye). (R. 206).
Plaintiff's application for disability benefits was initially denied by Defendant on August 16, 2016 (R. 87), and, pursuant to Plaintiff's request, a hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Maria Herrero-Jaarsma ("ALJ Herrero-Jaarsma" or "the ALJ") on February 1, 2013, in Buffalo, New York, at which Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Emdin, Esq. ("Emdin") appeared and testified. (R. 29-69 ). Vocational expert Rachel Duchon ("the VE"), also appeared via teleconference and testified. (R. 69-76). The ALJ's decision denying Plaintiff's claim was rendered on February 27, 2018. (R. 11-22). Plaintiff requested review of that decision from the Appeals Council, and on April 18, 2018, the ALJ's decision became Defendant's final decision when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. (R. 1-7). This action followed on June 13, 2018, with Plaintiff alleging that the ALJ erred by failing to find him disabled. (Dkt. No. 1).
On January 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings ("Plaintiff's motion"), accompanied by a memorandum of law (Dkt. No. 9-1) ("Plaintiff's Memorandum"). Defendant filed, on March 6, 2019, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings ("Defendant's motion"), accompanied by a memorandum of law (Dkt. No. 13-1) ("Defendant's Memorandum"). In further support of Plaintiff's Motion, Plaintiff filed on March 27, 2019, Plaintiff's Response to the Defendant's Motion. (Dkt. No. 13). Oral argument was deemed unnecessary. Based on the following, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED; Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file.
A district court may set aside the Commissioner's determination that a claimant is not disabled if the factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence, or thedecision is based on legal error. See 42 U.S.C. 405(g); Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 105-06 (2d Cir. 2003). "Substantial evidence" means 'such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.'" Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 2000).
The standard of review for courts reviewing administrative findings regarding disability benefits, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34 and 1381-85, is whether the administrative law judge's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). Substantial evidence requires enough evidence that a reasonable person would "accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). When evaluating a claim, the Commissioner must consider "objective medical facts, diagnoses or medical opinions based on these facts, subjective evidence of pain or disability (testified to by the claimant and others), and . . . educational background, age and work experience." Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1545, 1550 (2d Cir. 1983) (quoting Miles v. Harris, 645 F.2d 122, 124 (2d Cir. 1981)). If the opinion of the treating physician is supported by medically acceptable techniques and results from frequent examinations, and the opinion supports the administrative record, the treating physician's opinion will be given controlling weight. Schisler v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d 563, 567 (2d Cir. 1993); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d). The Commissioner's final determination will be affirmed, absent legal error, if it is supported by substantial evidence. Dumas, 712 F.2d at 1550; 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). "Congress has instructed . . . that thefactual findings of the Secretary,3 if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive." Rutherford v. Schweiker, 685 F.2d 60, 62 (2d Cir. 1982).
The applicable regulations set forth a five-step analysis the Commissioner must follow in determining eligibility for disability insurance benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. See Bapp v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 1986); Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1982). The first step is to determine whether the applicant is engaged in substantial gainful activity during the period for which benefits are claimed. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(b) and 416.920(b). If the claimant is engaged in such activity the inquiry ceases and the claimant is not eligible for disability benefits. Id. The next step is to determine whether the applicant has a severe impairment which significantly limits the physical or mental ability to do basic work activities as defined in the applicable regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c). Absent an impairment, the applicant is not eligible for disability benefits. Id. Third, if there is an impairment and the impairment, or an equivalent, is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations and meets the duration requirement, the individual is deemed disabled, regardless of the applicant's age, education or work experience, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d) and 416.920(d), as, in such a case, there is a presumption the applicant with such an impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity.4 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A) and 1382(c)(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 and 416.920. See alsoCosme v. Bowen, 1986 WL 12118, at * 2 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); Clemente v. Bowen, 646 F.Supp. 1265, 1270 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
However, as a fourth step, if the impairment or its equivalent is not listed in Appendix 1, the Commissioner must then consider the applicant's "residual functional capacity" and the demands of any past work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e). If the applicant can still perform work he or she has done in the past, the applicant will be denied disability benefits. Id. Finally, if the applicant is unable to perform any past work, the Commissioner will consider the individual's "residual functional capacity," age, education and past work experience in order to determine whether the applicant can perform any alternative employment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f). See also Berry, 675 F.2d at 467 (). If the Commissioner finds that the applicant cannot perform any other work, the applicant is considered disabled and eligible for disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). The applicant bears the burden of proof as to the first four steps, while the Commissioner bears the burden of proof on the final step relating to other employment. Berry, 675 F.2d at 467. In reviewing the administrative finding, the court must follow the five-step analysis and 20 C.F.R. § 416.935(a) ("§ 416.935(a)"), to determine if there was substantial evidence on which the Commissioner based the decision. 20 C.F.R. § 416.935(a); Richardson, 402 U.S. at 410.
In the instant case, the ALJ determined Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity since Plaintiff's alleged disability onset date of October 31, 2015 (R. 11), has the severe impairments of ankylosin spondylitis (spinal arthritis) with associatedchronic lumbar and cervical pain and iritis of the eye. (R. 13), Plaintiff's impairments or combination of impairments do not meet or medically equal the severity of any impairment in the Listings in Appendix 1, Plaintiff's statements regarding the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of symptoms related to his impairments were not entirely credible (R. 17), and Plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work with limitations that require the ability to alter positions between sitting and standing during an eight-hour day while remaining on task, sitting for 15 minutes before having to change positions, standing up to 15 minutes before sitting while remaining on task, occasional pushing, pulling, climbing ramps and stairs, balancing on level surfaces, kneeling, crouching, incidental stooping, and no crawling, occasional rotation, flexion, extension of neck movement, meaning occasionally looking down, turning the head right or left, looking up, holding the head in a static position,...
To continue reading
Request your trial