Lauriano v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
| Decision Date | 19 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | 5:13CV2194 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
| Parties | SARAH M. LAURIANO, Plaintiff v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant |
MAG. JUDGE KENNETH S. McHARGH
The issue before the court is whether the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") denying Plaintiff Sarah M. Lauriano's application for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C § 1381 et seq., is supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, conclusive.
On May 7, 2010, Plaintiff Sarah M. Lauriano ("Lauriano") applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits. (Doc. 13, tr., at 105-111.) Lauriano stated that she became unable to work because of her disabling condition on June 17, 2009. (Tr., at 105.) Lauriano listed her physical or mental conditions that limit her ability to work as "blind in left eye; stroke caused weakness; depression' and asthma." (Tr., at 124.)
Lauriano's application was denied initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr., at 64-65.) On June 10, 2011, Lauriano filed a written request for a hearing before an administrative law judge. (Tr., at 80-81.)
An Administrative Law Judge ("the ALJ") convened a hearing on April 30, 2012, to hear Lauriano's case. (Tr., at 27-63.) Lauriano was represented by counsel at the hearing. (Tr., at 27, 29.) James Primm ("Primm"), a vocational expert, attended the hearing by telephone, and provided testimony. (Tr., at 29, 55-61.)
On June 1, 2012, the ALJ issued his decision applying the standard five-step sequential analysis1 to determine whether Lauriano was disabled. (Tr., at 10-21.)Based on his review, the ALJ concluded Lauriano was not disabled. (Tr., at 10, 21.) Following the issuance of this ruling, Lauriano sought review of the ALJ's decision from the Appeals Council. (Tr., at 9.) However, the council denied Lauriano's request for review, thus rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr., at 1-4.) Lauriano now seeks judicial review of the Commissioner's final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Lauriano briefs five legal issues:
Lauriano was born on May 6, 1992, and was 18 years old as of her application date. (Tr., at 20, 32.) Accordingly, Lauriano was at all times considered a "younger person" for Social Security purposes. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.963(c). Lauriano has a high school education, is enrolled at university, and is able to communicate in English. (Tr., at 18, 20, 33.) She has no past relevant work. (Tr., at 20, 35, 56.)
Disputed issues will be discussed as they arise in Lauriano's brief alleging errors by the ALJ. A short summary of relevant medical history follows here. As noted earlier, Lauriano applied for Supplemental Security Income benefits on May 7, 2010. (Doc. 13, tr., at 105-111.) Lauriano had listed her physical or mental conditions that limit her ability to work as "blind in left eye; stroke caused weakness; depression; and asthma." (Tr., at 124.)
Lauriano had a history of severe persistent asthma with respiratory failure. On June 17, 2009, Lauriano was in her bathroom at home when she called out to her step-uncle that she was having difficulty breathing. She then fell over and hit her head on the bathtub. When EMS arrived, she was in respiratory failure. (Tr., at 204-210.) She remained in the hospital until July 2, 2009, when she was transferred to an in-patient rehabilitation center. Her discharge diagnosis was respiratory failure and traumatic brain injury. (Tr., at 204.)
The rehabilitation center noted that, prior to this traumatic incident, Lauriano was a high school student who had been "active and independent." (Tr., at 381.) Lauriano was admitted for physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, and psychological counseling. (Tr., at 381-382.)
It was also determined that Lauriano had suffered a "right occipital stroke" on June 17, 2009. As a result, since that time she has been unable to see out of her left eye, and her right eye was weaker. (Tr., at 558.) On July 18, 2009, she was assessed by Drusilla Grant, O.D., with "myopic astigmatism, accommodative insufficiency, blindness in the left eye, and visual field loss in the right eye." At that time, she was referred to Dr. Cheryl Reed, for a low vision assessment. (Tr., at 559.)
Dr. Reed evaluated Lauriano as follows:
(Tr., at 272.)
Kimberly A. Masterson, M.D., is Lauriano's treating primary care physician. Dr. Masterson prepared a disability evaluation dated March 12, 2012, in connection with Lauriano's request for accommodations for Kent State University. (Tr., at 673-675.) Dr. Masterson stated:
Sarah Lauriano has multiple disabilities which affect her ability to learn and perform tasks. She had a stroke in 2009 which caused blindness in one eye. This stroke also affected her emotional health, ability to concentrate and may have had effects on processing information. She is requesting to use a calculator for math. I think that this is a reasonable accommodation given her underlying disabilities.
(Tr. ,at 673.) Although Dr. Masterson was Lauriano's treating physician both before and after her injury (see generally tr., at 596-602, 605-606, 611-614), Lauriano did not provide any further specific support for her Social Security claims from Dr. Masterson.
At the hearing, counsel for Lauriano pointed out in his opening statement that the accommodations required by Lauriano for college "would clearly put her into accommodated work." (Doc. 13, tr., at 31.) Counsel stated that Lauriano, at best, would be "able to do some limited accommodated work, which is not SGA." Id.
The vocational expert Primm provided testimony. (Tr., at 55-61.) The ALJ posed a hypothetical question, which served in large part as the basis for his RFC finding. The hypothetical VE Primm was asked concerned a younger individual limited to light work on an exertional basis, who could not climb ladders, ropes, and scaffolds, but could occasionally climb ramps and stairs, as long as that was not an essential function of her job. She would be limited to performing simple, routine tasks that would not require normal visual acuity, depth perception, binocular vision, or a full or near-full visual field in the better eye. She cannot operate motor vehicles, and cannot work around moving or dangerous machinery, or at unprotected heights. Without accommodation for the visually impaired, she cannot do data entry. She would function best if she did not have to handle money, or deal with math functions, as an essential function of the job. This hypothetical person would need to avoid even moderate exposure to dust, fumes, odors, gases, and poor ventilation. (Tr., at 56-57.)
The vocational expert responded that this hypothetical individual could perform several jobs. The first light duty position would be an information clerk position, DOT number 237.637-018, SVP level of 2, unskilled. There are approximately 997,000 positions nationally, and 27,000 in the state of Ohio. Second, a ticket taker, also light duty unskilled, DOT number 344.667-010. For this position, there are approximately 107,000 positions in the national economy, and 1,900 in Ohio. The third position is garment folder, another light duty unskilledposition, DOT number 789.687-066. There are 394,000 positions nationally, and 20,000 positions in the state of...
To continue reading
Request your trial