Maisonave v. Berryhill
| Decision Date | 03 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | 18 Civ. 2960 (HBP) |
| Parties | NANCY ALTAGRACIA MAISONAVE, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Nancy Altagracia Maisonave brings this action pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"), denying her application for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") for the period beginning December 13, 2011 and continuing to the present . Plaintiff has moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (D.I. 14). All parties have consented to my exercising plenary jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motion is denied.
II. Facts1
On October 4, 2014, plaintiff filed an application for DIB, alleging that she became disabled on December 13, 2011 (Tr. 236). After her application for benefits was initially denied on December 6, 2013 (Tr. 158-63), she requested, and was granted, a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ") (Tr. 165-66, 185-210).
Plaintiff and her attorney appeared before ALJ Seth Grossman for a hearing on July 23, 2015 and May 9, 2016, at which plaintiff, vocational expert ("VE") Dr. Tites,2 VE David Festa and a medical expert, Dr. Allan Levine, testified (Tr. 30-74, 75-141). On December 13, 2016, the ALJ issued his decision finding that plaintiff was not disabled (Tr. 12-29). This decisionbecame the final decision of the Commissioner on March 9, 2018 when the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review (Tr. 1-5). Plaintiff timely commenced this action on April 4, 2018, seeking review of the Commissioner's decision (Compl.).
Plaintiff was born on June 9, 1965 and was 49 years old when she applied for DIB (Tr. 236). Plaintiff was married with two adult daughters (Tr. 43), and she lived with her husband in the Bronx (Tr. 236). Plaintiff's "Work History Report" stated that she was employed from 1998 to 2011 as a factory worker who washed linens (Tr. 285-86). She worked eight hours per day, five days per week, and her work included lifting laundry baskets that weighed up to 20 pounds (Tr. 286). Plaintiff's "Disability Report" stated that she could speak and understand English, but that she was unable to read or write in English (Tr. 292); she testified at the hearing through an interpreter (Tr. 33-34, 77-78).
Plaintiff's primary care physician referred plaintiff to Dr. Virginia Contreras, a psychiatrist, for depression and irritability (Tr. 363, 412). In plaintiff's first appointment with Dr. Contreras on December 13, 2011, plaintiff reported feeling angry at times during the previous six months, with the urge "to hurt someone" (Tr. 363, 412). Plaintiff also reported an inability to sleep and decreased libido, but she denied any suicidal thoughts (Tr. 363, 412). In her examination of plaintiff's mental status, Dr. Contreras noted that plaintiff was alert and oriented, with coherent speech and a depressed, tearful mood (Tr. 363, 412).
On February 1, 2012, plaintiff reported that she continued to feel irritable (Tr. 364, 413), but at her March 3, 2012 appointment, she told Dr. Contreras that she was sleeping better (Tr. 365, 415). In May of 2012, plaintiff reported feeling very angry at her daughter after her daughter was caught stealing and got into a fight with another girl (Tr. 365, 415). At plaintiff's September 13, 2012 appointment, Dr. Contreras noted that plaintiff was depressed as a result of the deaths of her brother and sister and that plaintiff was no longer workingbecause the laundry business where she had been employed had burned down (Tr. 366, 414).
On November 15, 2012, Dr. Contreras noted that plaintiff was stable and that she denied any suicidal or homicidal thoughts (Tr. 416). In February of 2013, plaintiff reported that she had gone to the psychiatric emergency room twice "due to angry episodes"; she was discharged after a few hours (Tr. 367, 424). Plaintiff again denied any suicidal or homicidal thoughts (Tr. 367, 424).
In August of 2013, Dr. Contreras diagnosed plaintiff with depression (Tr. 368, 423). Plaintiff's PHQ-93 score was 27 on August 8, 2013 (Tr. 437). Dr. Contreras noted that plaintiff's husband, who attended plaintiff's appointment with her, felt that plaintiff was depressed, and that plaintiff was "very concerned" that her husband might lose his job (Tr. 368, 423). Plaintiff was also continuing to grieve the deaths of her sib-lings and "having issues" with her 18-year-old daughter (Tr. 368, 423).
On August 8, 2013, Dr. Contreras wrote that plaintiff sufferered from "frequent decompensations and psychiatric hospitalizations which require highly dosed treatment with psychotropic medications" (Tr. 328). Dr. Contreras opined that as a result of her psychiatric condition and the sedative effects of her medication, plaintiff was unable to work (Tr. 328).
At plaintiff's November 8, 2013 appointment, Dr. Contreras noted that plaintiff was stable and denied any suicidal or homicidal thoughts (Tr. 369, 422). However, plaintiff's PHQ-9 score remained at 27 (Tr. 438), and she reported that her husband had lost his job and that they were four months behind on their rent payments (Tr. 369, 422).
In a medical source statement dated January 29, 2014 (Tr. 397-99), Dr. Contreras opined that plaintiff's abilities to understand, remember and carry out simple and complex instructions and to make judgments on simple and complex work-related decisions were markedly limited (Tr. 397). Dr. Contreras also found that plaintiff's abilities to interact appropriately with the public, supervisors and co-workers and to respond appropriately to usual work situations and changes in a routine work setting were markedly limited (Tr. 398). Dr. Contreras wrotethat she based her findings on clinical assessments, laboratory testing and plaintiff's PHQ-9 scores (Tr. 398). Finally, she opined that plaintiff's limitations first presented on December 13, 2011 (Tr. 398).
Throughout the rest of 2014 and into 2015, plaintiff remained stable according to Dr. Contreras (Tr. 417-21). Although plaintiff's mood was depressed in March of 2014, it improved to "pleasant" by August (Tr. 420-21), but her August 6, 2014 PHQ-9 score was 26 (Tr. 435). However, on October 27, 2014, plaintiff's PHQ-9 score had improved to 17 (Tr. 434). In December of 2014 and April of 2015, plaintiff reported that her sleep and appetite were adequate (Tr. 417-18). On April 17, 2015, Dr. Contreras wrote a letter identical to her August 8, 2013 letter on plaintiff's behalf (Tr. 410). Dr. Contreras reiterated her opinion that plaintiff was unable to work (Tr. 410). On June 29, 2015, plaintiff's PHQ-9 score had gone up to 22 (Tr. 432).
In a mental impairment questionnaire dated June 29, 2015, Dr. Contreras wrote that plaintiff (Tr. 426). Dr. Contreras listed plaintiff's signs andsymptoms as anhedonia,4 appetite disturbance with weight change, decreased energy, thoughts of suicide, hallucinations or delusions, inappropriate affect, feelings of guilt or worthlessness, motor tension, impulse control impairment, emotional lability, generalized persistent anxiety, neck and body pain and headache, mood disturbance, difficulty thinking or concentrating, paranoid thinking, sleep disturbance and emotional withdrawal (Tr. 427, 429). She opined that plaintiff was "[u]nable to meet competitive standards" with respect to her abilities to remember work-like procedures, to maintain attention for two hours, to maintain regular attendance and be punctual, to sustain an ordinary routine, to work with or near others without undue distraction, to make simple work-related decisions, to complete a normal workday and workweek without interruption, to perform at a consistent pace, to accept instruction and respond appropriately to criticism, to respond appropriately to changes in a routine work setting, to deal with normal work stress, to interact appropriately with the general public, to maintain socially appropriate behavior, to adhere to basic standards of neatnessand cleanliness, to travel in unfamiliar places and to use public transportation (Tr. 428).
Dr. Marilee Mescon, a consulting internist, examined plaintiff on November 14, 2013 (Tr. 384-87). Plaintiff complained of an accidental puncture wound to her right hand, which she sustained when she fell on a key (Tr. 384). Plaintiff reported undergoing two hand surgeries after her fall (Tr. 384). Plaintiff denied any history of high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, asthma, emphysema or seizures (Tr. 384).
Plaintiff reported to Dr. Mescon that she started smoking cigarettes in 2010 and that she smoked one pack per day (Tr. 384). She denied drinking alcohol or using illegal drugs (Tr. 384). Plaintiff reported that she cooked, cleaned, did laundry and shopped (Tr. 384). She showered, bathed and dressed herself and spent her time watching television (Tr. 384).
Upon examination, plaintiff appeared to be in no acute distress (Tr. 385). She was able to sit, stand and walk normally and without assistance, and she did not require help changing her clothes or getting on and off the exam table (Tr. 385). Plaintiff was wearing a splint on her right wrist (Tr. 385). She reported a loss of sensation in her right thumb and right indexfinger and a tingling sensation in the third finger of her right hand (Tr. 386). Dr. Mescon assessed plaintiff's motor strength in...
To continue reading
Request your trial