Marilyn C. v. Kijakazi
| Decision Date | 09 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 20 CV 1816 |
| Parties | MARILYN C., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,[1] Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Plaintiff Marilyn C. brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of the Social Security Administration's (SSA) decision denying her application for benefits. For the following reasons, the Court denies plaintiff's request to reverse the SSA's decision and remand this case to the agency [20],[2] grants the Commissioner of Social Security's (Commissioner) motion for summary judgment [25], and affirms the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application for benefits.
In late May 2017, plaintiff filed a Title II application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits, alleging an onset date of August 26, 2016. [17-1] 16. Plaintiff's claims were denied initially and on reconsideration. [Id.]. Plaintiff requested a hearing, which was held by an administrative law judge (ALJ) on October 1, 2018. [Id.]. In a decision dated December 13, 2018, the ALJ ruled that plaintiff was not disabled. [Id.] 23. The Appeals Council denied review on December 16, 2019 making the ALJ's decision the agency's final decision. [Id.] 1-5. See 20 C.F.R §§ 404.955, 404.981.
Plaintiff timely appealed to this Court [1]. The Court has jurisdiction to review the Acting Commissioner's decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the parties have consented to my jurisdiction over the case in accordance with 28 U.S.C § 636(c). [7].
Plaintiff was 52 years old when she applied for disability benefits due to a detached retina, retina surgery, dizziness, and a vision impairment. [17-2] 195. Before applying for benefits, plaintiff held a variety of work positions, including as an underwriting assistant, executive assistant, director of learner engagement, account executive, and account manager. [17-3] 197.
The record contains evidence that plaintiff was diagnosed with severe major depression. [17-6] 534. Plaintiff was physically abused by one of her brothers and struggled in school due to undiagnosed ADHD. [Id.] 532. In her mid-twenties, plaintiff experienced post-partum depression and anxiety and was prescribed Zoloft. [Id.] 533. During this time she went to therapy. [Id.]. In her late twenties, plaintiff saw a psychiatrist who diagnosed her with ADHD and prescribed Adderall. [Id.] 532. Plaintiff stopped taking Zoloft in 2016 and did not take any prescribed psychotropic medications in September 2017, when she was examined by state agency clinical psychologist Jauren Kelly. [Id.] 532-34.
During the exam, Dr. Kelly noted that plaintiff was never hospitalized for mental illness and was not in any mental health treatment. [Id.] 533. Plaintiff reported that she applied for disability due to a “detached retina, retina surgery, dizziness, and vision impairment.” [Id.] 532. Plaintiff described that she is “usually depressed and.has frequent crying episodes,” difficulty sleeping, and worries about going blind. [Id.] 533. She also stated that she “enjoys spending time with her nephews” and recently started dating. [Id.]. Plaintiff's mental status exam revealed that she was “alert and oriented to person, place and time,” and “cooperative.” [Id.]. Dr. Kelly also found plaintiff's mood was depressed and her affect congruent. [Id.]. Dr. Kelly further observed plaintiff had an adequate fund of information and good insight but that she was unable to relate recent news events. [Id.] 533-34. Dr. Kelly ultimately diagnosed plaintiff with severe recurrent major depression with symptoms that included depressed mood, crying episodes, poor motivation, poor self-care, sleep difficulty, rumination, and isolative behavior. [Id.] 534. Finally, Dr. Kelly concluded that plaintiff is capable of handling her own financial affairs. [Id.].
In addition, non-examining state agency psychologists, Russel Taylor and Steven Fritz, each conducted mental RFC evaluations of plaintiff and concluded plaintiff's depression was non-severe on September 20, 2017 and March 14, 2018, respectively. [17-1] 69, 81-82. Both psychologists' evaluations assigned plaintiff mild limitations in: understanding, remembering of applying information; interacting with others; concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; and adapting or managing oneself. [Id.] 67, 80. Dr. Taylor and Dr. Fritz each explained, plaintiff “does not allege a mental condition and she is not in treatment and does not take psychotropic medication and has not for two years . . . While she was [diagnosed with] depression at the one-time [consultative psychological examination], she is not in treatment and does not have cognitive or social limitations.” [Id.] 68, 81.
Plaintiff also completed a function report noting her mental health difficulties. [17-2] 183-90. Plaintiff described that her vision problems caused two panic attacks, difficulty sleeping, and anxiety. [Id.] 184, 189. Further, because she must walk with one eye closed, plaintiff is uncomfortable and nervous in crowds. [Id.] 188. Plaintiff reports that her impairments affect her concentration. [Id.] However, plaintiff admitted that she is not on her ADHD medication because she does not have insurance. [Id.] When she is on her medication, plaintiff stated she can follow written instructions well. [Id.]. Plaintiff also stated that she cares for her three- and two-year-old nephews and interacts with others daily. [Id.] 184, 187. On October 1, 2018, plaintiff testified at the administrative hearing. [17-1] 30-54. Plaintiff did not mention her prior diagnoses of major depression or ADHD, any treatment, or symptoms she experienced associated with either disorder. [Id.].
In June 2016, plaintiff began experiencing floaters and sudden flashes of light in her left eye. [17-3] 292. Plaintiff saw an optometrist, Dr. Rabia Awan, who stated these symptoms were due to age and plaintiff did not further investigate her symptoms. [17-3] 292; [17-5] 430. Two months later, plaintiff experienced a sudden loss of central vision in her left eye and worsening floaters and light flashes. [17-3] 292. Plaintiff visited ophthalmologist, Dr. Jose Garcia Gonzalez who diagnosed plaintiff with a “macula off retinal detachment in the left eye” and bilateral vitreous degeneration. [Id.] 293. Dr. Garcia recommended immediate surgery. [Id.]. That same day Dr. Garcia operated on the plaintiff, performing a pars plana vitrectomy, air-fluid exchange, endolaser, and SF6 placement to remove vitreous gel from her left eye and reattach her retina. [Id.] 269, 272.
The next day plaintiff reported to Dr. Garcia's colleague ophthalmologist Dr. Michael Blair, that she could see light, colors, and objects, but the objects are blurry. [Id.] 295. Two weeks after the surgery plaintiff returned to Dr. Garcia, for reevaluation. [17-4] 299. Dr. Garcia remarked “everything appears to be stable and the retina is attached.” [Id.]. Plaintiff told Dr. Garcia that she felt her overall vision in her left eye “slightly improved” since her last visit. [Id.] 298. She no longer experienced floaters, light flashes, lights, or colors. [Id.]. A week after plaintiff's reevaluation she returned to Dr. Garcia because in her left eye plaintiff saw a bubble and everything looked blurry. [Id.] 301. She also reported an intermittent black dot and light sensitivity, also in her left eye. [Id.]. On examination, plaintiff's visual acuity was limited to counting fingers and she was unable to see her daughter except when far away and without her glasses. [Id.] 302. Dr. Garcia suspected plaintiff had a severe myopic shift and would need corrective glasses. [Id.]. Dr. Garcia told plaintiff not to be concerned, that he would continue to observe her, and if her vision did not improve, refer her for refraction. [Id.]. At plaintiff's third re-evaluation, plaintiff reported that her vision improved but was still blurry and that she experienced double vision when both eyes are open. [Id.] 304. Plaintiff continued to describe an intermittent black dot and light sensitivity in her left eye. [Id.]. Dr. Garcia observed “everything appears to be stable” and that her visual acuity improved to 20/400, pinhole to 20/150. [Id.] 305. Dr. Garcia remarked that he was “hopeful . . . her vision [would] continue to improve” and recommended time off-work while her visual acuity improves. [Id.]. During plaintiff's fourth re-evaluation, plaintiff continued to report that her vision was improving but, it is still blurry. [Id.] 307. Plaintiff again described double vision when both eyes are open, light sensitivity and an intermittent black dot in her left eye. [Id.] 307. Plaintiff also reported seeing a “green light and circles around it.” [Id.]. Once again, Dr. Garcia noted plaintiff's vision improved and that while the retina had mild changes to photoreceptors, that should improve with time, allowing her vision to improve. [Id.] 308. In plaintiff's fifth evaluation re-evaluation plaintiff reported the same symptoms, with Dr. Garcia noting “vision is not as good as we would like it to be” and recommending plaintiff obtain a refraction or cataract evaluation. [Id.] 310-11. Almost two months later, plaintiff returned for her sixth reevaluation, reporting no changes to her vision since her last visit in late October 2016. [Id.] 313. On examination, Dr. Garcia noted that on near card reading, without her glasses, she could read to 20/50 with severe metamorphopsia. [Id.] 314. Dr. Garcia explained that severe metamorphopsia was likely caused by dense epiretinal membrane and...
To continue reading
Request your trial