Ortiz-Rivera v. Kijakazi

• Decision Date: 03 January 2023
• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:21-CV-02134
• Parties: RICARDO ORTIZ-RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIZAKAZI, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

1

RICARDO ORTIZ-RIVERA, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIZAKAZI, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-02134

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

January 3, 2023

MEMORANDUM

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Ricardo Ortiz-Rivera (“Ortiz-Rivera”) brings this action pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying him application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). On March 7, 2022, the parties consented to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 and 28 U.S.C § 636(c). (Doc. 11). For the following reasons, the Commissioner's decision will be AFFIRMED.

I. Background and Procedural History

On July 10, 2017, Ortiz-Rivera protectively filed applications for Title II disability insurance benefits, claiming disability beginning September 9, 2016. (Doc. 13-3, at 19). The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) initially denied his application on August 15, 2017. (Doc. 13-3, at 19). On August 30, 2017, Ortiz-Rivera filed a request for a hearing, which Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Richard Zack held on October 22, 2018. (Doc. 13-3, at 19). In a written opinion dated December 5, 2018, ALJ Zack determined that Ortiz-Rivera “has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act from September 9, 2016, through the date of this decision,” and therefore not entitled to benefits under Title II. (Doc. 13-3, at 29).

On April 1, 2020, the Appeals Council granted Ortiz-Rivera's request for review, vacating the hearing decision and remanding the case to an ALJ for reconsideration. (Doc. 13-3, at 33). The Appeals Council found that ALJ Zack failed to evaluate the medical source opinion by Sumnet Sandhu, M.D. (“Dr. Sandhu”). (Doc. 13-3, at 35). In the remand order, the Appeals Council directed the ALJ to:

• Obtain additional evidence concerning [Ortiz-Rivera]'s impairments in order to complete the administrative record in accordance with the regulatory standards regarding consultative examinations and existing medical evidence (20 CFR 404.1512). The additional evidence may include, if warranted and available, a consultative psychiatric examination and medical source opinions about what [Ortiz-Rivera] ca still do despite the impairments.

• Give further consideration to [Ortiz-Rivera]'s maximum residual functional capacity during the entire period at issue and provide rationale with specific references to evidence of record in support of assessed limitations (Social Security Ruling 96-8p). in so doing, evaluate the medical source opinion(s) pursuant to the provisions of 20 CFR 404.1520c. as appropriate, the [ALJ] may request the medical source provide additional evidence and/or further clarification of the opinion (0 CFR 404.1520b). The [ALJ] may enlist the aid and cooperation of [Ortiz-Rivera]'s representative in developing evidence from [Ortiz-Rivera]'s medical source.

• If warranted by the expanded record, obtain evidence from a vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on [Ortiz-Rivera]'s occupational base (Social Security Rulings 83-14 and 85-15). The hypothetical questions should reflect the specific capacity/limitations established by the record as a whole. The [ALJ] will ask the vocational expert to identify examples of appropriate jobs and to state the incidence of such jobs in the national economy (20 CFR 404.1566). Further, before relying on the vocational expert evidence the [ALJ] will identify and resolve any conflicts between the occupational evidence provided by the vocational expert and information in the Dictionary of Occupational Titled (DOT) and its companion publication, the Selected Characteristics of Occupations (Social Security 00-4p).

(Doc. 13-3, at 35-36).

On remand, ALJ Frank Barletta held a telephonic hearing on October 5, 2020, and a supplemental hearing on February 10, 2021, where Ortiz-Rivera's representative questioned the vocational expert regarding her answers to interrogatories presented by ALJ Barletta. (Doc. 13-2, at 29). In a written opinion dated March 29, 2021, ALJ Barletta determined that Ortiz-Rivera “was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from September 9, 2016, the alleged onset date, through June 30, 2020, the last date insured,” and therefore not entitled to benefits under Title II. (Doc. 13-2, at 51). On October 19, 2021, the Appeals Council denied Ortiz-Rivera's request for review. (Doc. 13-2, at 2).

On December 20, 2021, Ortiz-Rivera filed the instant complaint. (Doc. 1). The Commissioner responded on March 10, 2022, providing an answer and the requisite transcripts from Ortiz-Rivera's disability proceedings. (Doc. 12; Doc. 13). The parties then filed their respective briefs, with Ortiz-Rivera raising four bases for reversal or remand. (Doc. 14; Doc. 18; Doc. 20).

II. Standards of Review

To receive benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, a claimant must demonstrate an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). To satisfy this requirement, a claimant must have a severe physical or mental impairment that makes it impossible to do his or her previous work or any other substantial gainful activity that exists in significant numbers in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1505(a).^[1] Additionally, to be eligible to receive benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, a claimant must be insured for disability insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(a); 20 C.F.R. § 404.131.

A. Administrative Review

In evaluating whether a claimant is disabled, the “Social Security Administration, working through ALJs, decides whether a claimant is disabled by following a now familiar five-step analysis.” Hessv.Comm'r Soc. Sec., 931 F.3d 198, 200-01 (3d Cir. 2019). The “burden of proof is on the claimant at all steps except step five, where the burden is on the Commissioner of Social Security.” Hess, 931 F.3d at 201; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a)(1). Thus, if the claimant establishes an inability to do past relevant work at step four, the burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five to show that jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant could perform consistent with his or her residual functional capacity, age, education, and past work experience. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(a)(1).

B. Judicial Review

The Court's review of a determination denying an application for benefits is limited “to considering whether the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Katz v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., No. 19-1268, 2019 WL 6998150, at *1 (3d Cir. Dec. 20, 2019). Substantial evidence “does not mean a large or considerable amount of evidence, but rather such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). Substantial evidence is less than a preponderance of the evidence but more than a mere scintilla. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).

A single piece of evidence is not substantial if the ALJ ignores countervailing evidence or fails to resolve a conflict created by such evidence. Mason v. Shalala, 994 F.2d 1058, 1064 (3d Cir. 1993). In an adequately developed factual record, substantial evidence may be “something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [the ALJ's decision] from being supported by substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Maritime Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). “In determining if the Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence the court must scrutinize the record as a whole.” Leslie v. Barnhart, 304 F.Supp.2d 623, 627 (M.D. Pa. 2003).

The question before the Court, therefore, is not whether Ortiz-Rivera was disabled, but whether the Commissioner's determination that Ortiz-Rivera was not disabled is supported by substantial evidence and was reached based upon a correct application of the relevant law. See Arnold v. Colvin, No. 3:12-CV-02417, 2014 WL 940205, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2014) (“[I]t has been held that an ALJ's errors of law denote a lack of substantial evidence.”); Burton v. Schweiker, 512 F.Supp. 913, 914 (W.D. Pa. 1981) (“The [Commissioner]'s determination as to the status of a claim requires the correct application of the law to the facts.”); see also Wright v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 675, 678 (3d Cir. 1990) (noting that the scope of review on legal matters is plenary). If “the ALJ's findings of fact . . . are supported by substantial evidence in the record,” the Court is bound by those findings. Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000).

III. The ALJ's Decision

In his written decision, ALJ Barletta determined that Ortiz-Rivera “was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from September 9, 2016, the alleged onset date, through June 30, 2020, the last date insured.” (Doc. 13-2, at 50). The ALJ reached this conclusion after proceeding through the five-step sequential analysis required by the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). At the outset, ALJ Barletta determined that Ortiz-Rivera met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act on June 30, 2020. (Doc. 13-2, at 32).

A. Step One

At step one of the five-step analysis, the ALJ...