Kreilach v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:20-cv-00875 |
| Decision Date | 15 August 2022 |
| Citation | 621 F.Supp.3d 836 |
| Parties | Michelle Marie KREILACH, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Karl E. Osterhout, Osterhout Fulton-Brown, Oakmont, PA, for Plaintiff.
Cara Staley Rafferty, Office of the U.S. Attorney - Social Security, Cleveland, OH, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Michelle Marie Kreilach applied for social security disability benefits. The Commissioner denied her application, both initially and on reconsideration. Plaintiff requested a hearing, after which the administrative law judge also denied her application. She appealed, but the appellate council declined review, rendering final the Commissioner's denial. Then, Plaintiff sought review in federal court. The Magistrate Judge recommends reversing the Commissioner's decision. The Commissioner objects to that recommendation. For the reasons that follow, the Court SUSTAINS the Commissioner's objection (ECF No. 19), DECLINES TO ADOPT IN PART the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18), and AFFIRMS the Commissioner's denial of Plaintiff's application for disability benefits.
In April 2017, Ms. Kreilach applied for social security disability insurance benefits, alleging disability beginning in May 2014. (ECF No. 12, PageID #225.) The Commissioner denied her application initially and on reconsideration. (Id., PageID #178 & #185.) Then, Ms. Kreilach requested a hearing before an administrative law judge, who also denied her application. (Id., PageID #75 & #193.)
Relevant to the issues before the Court are two mental impairment questionnaires and the opinions of the State agency psychological consultants.
In October 2017, Kelley Kauffman, C.N.P., and Andrew Hunt, M.D., completed a mental impairment questionnaire check-box form. (ECF No. 12, PageID #887-88.) They indicated that they had monthly contact with Ms. Kreilach since March 2016. (Id., PageID #887.) Under clinical findings, Kauffman and Dr. Hunt identified "avoidance, detachment, restricted range of affect, foreshortened sense of future, hypervigilance, flashbacks/intrusive memories, nightmares, frustration intolerance, sleep disturbance, [and being] easily startled." (Id.)
By checking boxes on the form, Kauffman and Dr. Hunt opined that Ms. Kreilach had "no useful ability to function" in areas such as completing work without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms, performing at a consistent pace without unreasonable rest periods, and responding appropriately to changes in the work setting. (Id., PageID #887-88.) They opined that Ms. Kreilach was "unable to meet competitive standards" in carrying out detailed instructions, maintaining attention and concentration, performing activities within a schedule, and interacting appropriately with the general public. (Id.) Further, they anticipated that Ms. Kreilach's impairments would cause her to be absent from work more than four days per month and that she would be off task more than twenty-five percent of an eight-hour workday. (Id., PageID #888.)
In August 2018, David Brager, C.N.P., and Audrey Tate, a licensed professional counselor, completed a check-box mental impairment questionnaire. (Id., PageID #643-44.) They indicated that Brager had monthly contact with Ms. Kreilach, and Dr. Tate had contact every two weeks. (Id., PageID #643.) Under diagnoses, they indicated major depression, panic disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder. (Id.) Under clinical findings, they indicated that Ms. Kreilach had severe anxiety and panic episodes. (Id.)
By checking boxes on the form, Brager and Dr. Tate opined that Ms. Kreilach had "no useful ability to function" in remembering or carrying out detailed instructions, working in proximity to others, completing work without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms, performing at a consistent pace without unreasonable rest periods, and remembering work procedures. (Id., PageID #643-44.) They opined that Ms. Kreilach was "unable to meet competitive standards" in remembering and carrying out simple instructions, maintaining attention and concentration, managing attendance and punctuality, sustaining an ordinary routine, and interacting appropriately with the general public. (Id.) Further, they anticipated that Ms. Kreilach's impairments would cause her to be absent from work at least once a week and to be off task for three out of eight hours during the workday. (Id., PageID #644.)
In July 2017, State agency psychologist Cynthia Waggoner, Psy.D., completed a mental residual functional capacity assessment of Ms. Kreilach. Dr. Waggoner opined that Ms. Kreilach could adapt to infrequent changes in the workplace and could have brief, superficial interactions with coworkers. (Id., PageID #155-56.) Further, Dr. Waggoner opined that Ms. Kreilach should not work with the public and that her work should not require a fast pace, high production demands, or sustained concentration. (Id., PageID #155.)
On reconsideration, in October 2017, State agency psychologist Joseph Edwards, Ph.D., also completed a mental residual functional capacity assessment of Ms. Kreilach. In significant part, Dr. Edwards agreed with Dr. Waggoner's assessment. However, Dr. Edwards made some changes to the functional assessment based on evidence that indicated that Ms. Kreilach's anxiety was worsening. (Id., PageID #173.) Dr. Edwards opined that Ms. Kreilach was capable of understanding and remembering one to three step instructions, performing one to three step routine tasks, and adapting when major changes are explained in advance and implemented gradually to allow for adjustment. (Id., PageID #172-73.) In addition to agreeing that Ms. Kreilach's work should not require a fast pace, high production demands, or sustained concentration, Dr. Edwards opined that the work "[m]ay require occasional flexibility for shifts and breaks due to symptoms fluctuation." (Id., PageID #172.)
After hearing testimony from Ms. Kreilach and a vocational expert and considering the evidence presented, an administrative law judge issued a written decision denying Ms. Kreilach's application. (Id., PageID #75.) In that decision, the ALJ outlined and conducted the customary five-step inquiry to determine whether Ms. Kreilach was disabled under Section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. (Id., PageID #78-93.)
At step one, the ALJ found that Ms. Kreilach has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of May 16, 2014. (Id., PageID #81.) At step two, the ALJ found that Ms. Kreilach had several severe impairments, including carpal tunnel syndrome, gastroesophageal reflux disease, asthma, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder. (Id.) The ALJ also found that Ms. Kreilach had irritable bowel syndrome but that it was not a severe impairment. (Id.) At step three, the ALJ found that Ms. Kreilach did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, app. 1 (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526). (Id., PageID #82.)
As to step four, the ALJ found that Ms. Kreilach had the residual functional capacity to perform light work, with several exceptions:
The claimant can frequently operate left hand controls. The claimant can frequently handle with the left and frequently finger with the left. The claimant can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, but never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. The claimant can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, and crawl. The claimant can never be exposed to unprotected heights, moving mechanical parts, or operate a motor vehicle. The claimant can frequently be exposed to humidity and wetness, dust, odors, fumes, and pulmonary irritants, extreme cold and extreme heat. The claimant is limited to performing simple, routine, and repetitive tasks, but not at a production rate pace (i.e. assembly line work). The claimant is limited to simple work related decisions in using her judgment and dealing with changes in the work setting. The claimant is able to occasionally interact with supervisors and coworkers and never intact with the public.
(Id., PageID #84.) In determining Ms. Kreilach's residual functional capacity, the ALJ considered Ms. Kreilach's testimony and the medical evidence and opinions in the record, including the 2017 and 2018 mental impairment questionnaires and the opinions of the State agency psychological consultants.
The ALJ considered the opinion of Nurse Kauffman and Dr. Hunt contained in the 2017 mental impairment questionnaire. (Id., PageID #89.) The ALJ found their opinion unpersuasive because it lacked support from Ms. Kreilach's treatment records, which he determined generally indicated mild to mostly moderate symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder. (Id.) Further, the ALJ found the opinion unpersuasive because it was inconsistent with the totality of the evidence showing improvement in Ms. Kreilach's symptoms with the prescribed medicine. (Id.)
The ALJ also considered the opinion of Nurse Brager and Dr. Tate contained in the 2018 mental impairment questionnaire. (Id., PageID #90.) Similarly, the ALJ found their opinion unpersuasive because it lacked support in the treatment records and was inconsistent with the totality of the evidence showing improvement in Ms. Kreilach's symptoms. (Id.)
The ALJ considered the opinions of State agency psychological consultants Dr. Waggoner and Dr....
To continue reading
Request your trial