Snyder v. Kijakazi

• Decision Date: 26 September 2022
• Docket Number: 1:21-CV-00103-LRR
• Parties: ALAN SNYDER, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

ALAN SNYDER, Plaintiff,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

No. 1:21-CV-00103-LRR

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division

September 26, 2022

ORDER

LINDA R. READE, JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

III. ALJ's FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

V. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

VI. ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Issues Raised by Plaintiff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

1. Whether the ALJ Failed to Follow the Law of the Case and this Court's Remand Order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2. Whether the ALJ Properly Considered Snyder's Subjective Complaints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. Whether the ALJ Provided Good Reasons for the Weight Afforded Dr. Schroder's Opinions. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

4. Whether the ALJ Erred by Not Fully and Fairly Developing the Record. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5. Whether the ALJ That Decided Snyder's Claim was Properly Appointed by Acting Commissioner Berryhill During Berryhill's Second Term as Acting Commissioner. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

1

V. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is the Complaint (docket no. 1) filed by Plaintiff Alan Snyder (“Snyder”), requesting judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's (“Commissioner”) decision to deny his application for Title II disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. Snyder asks that the court reverse the decision of the Commissioner and order the Commissioner to provide him disability insurance. In the alternative, Snyder requests that the court remand this matter for further proceedings.

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 27, 2016, Snyder protectively filed an application for DIB^[1], alleging disability due to primary insomnia and a cognitive disability or mild cognitive impairment. Administrative Record (“R”) at 200-201, 235. Snyder states that he became disabled on May 16, 2014. R at 235. His application was denied upon initial review and on reconsideration. R at 120-123, 126-129. On October 15, 2018, Snyder appeared with his attorney for a hearing before Administrative Law Judge Michael Comisky (“ALJ Comisky”). R at 50-81. In a decision dated November 13, 2018, ALJ Comisky denied Snyder's claim. R at 12-32. On January 15, 2019, Snyder appealed ALJ Comisky's decision, and the Appeals Council denied review on October 1, 2019. R at 1-6, 197-199. On December 5, 2019, Snyder filed suit in this court.^[2] R at 1164-1168. On February 11, 2021, the court issued a decision adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mark A. Roberts to remand the case for further

2

proceedings. R at 1444-1485. Pursuant to the court's order, the Appeals Council remanded the case for a new hearing on March 1, 2021. R at 1487-1491.

On June 6, 2021, Snyder appeared with his attorney for an administrative hearing via video conference before ALJ Matthew Gordon (the “ALJ”). R at 1378-1412. In a decision dated June 16, 2021, the ALJ denied Snyder' claim. R at 1350-1377.

On October 18, 2021, Snyder filed the instant action for judicial review. See docket no. 1. A briefing schedule was entered on January 3, 2022. See docket no. 11. On April 4, 2022, Snyder filed the Plaintiff's Brief (“Snyder's Brief”) (docket no. 14). On July 5, 2022, the Commissioner filed the Defendant's Brief (“Commissioner's Brief”) (docket no. 19). On July 15, 2022, Snyder filed the Reply Brief (docket no. 20). Additionally, on March 15, 2022, the parties filed the Joint Statement of Facts (docket no. 13).

III. ALJ's FINDINGS

The ALJ determined that Snyder was not entitled to disability insurance benefits because he was functionally capable of performing work available in the general economy. R at 1369. In making this determination, the ALJ followed the five-step sequential process required by the social security regulations for assessing whether a claimant is under a disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v); Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-42 (1987); Swink v. Saul, 931 F.3d 765, 769 (8th Cir. 2019); Moore v. Colvin, 769 F.3d 987, 988 (8th Cir. 2014). The five steps an ALJ must consider are 1) whether the claimant is currently employed; (2) whether the claimant is severely impaired; (3) whether the impairment is or approximates an impairment listed in Appendix 1; (4) whether the claimant can perform past relevant work; and, if not, (5) whether the claimant can perform any other kind of work. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v). “If a claimant fails to meet the criteria at any step in the evaluation of disability, the process ends and the claimant is determined to be not disabled.” Pelkey v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 575, 577 (8th Cir. 2006).

3

In considering the steps in the five-step process, the ALJ:

first determines if the claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity. If so, the claimant is not disabled Second, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a severe medical impairment that has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months. Third, the ALJ considers the severity of the impairment, specifically whether it meets or equals one of the listed impairments. If the ALJ finds a severe impairment that meets the duration requirement, and meets or equals a listed impairment, then the claimant is disabled. However, the fourth step asks whether the claimant has the residual functional capacity to do past relevant work. If so, the claimant can perform other jobs in the economy. If so, the claimant is not disabled.

Kluesner v. Astrue, 607 F.3d 533, 537 (8th Cir. 2010). At the fourth step, the claimant “bears the burden of demonstrating an inability to return to [his] or her past relevant work.” Jones v. Astrue, 619 F.3d 963, 971 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Pate-Fires v. Astrue, 564 F.3d 935, 942 (8th Cir. 2009)). If the claimant is unable to return to his relevant past work, then, at step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that “the claimant has the physical residual functional capacity [(“RFC”)] to perform a significant number of other jobs in the national economy that are consistent with [his or] her impairments and vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience.” Phillips v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 699, 702 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Holley v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1088, 1093 (8th Cir. 2001)). The RFC is the most an individual can do despite the combined effect of all of his or her credible limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a); Toland v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir. 2014). The ALJ bears the responsibility for determining “a claimant's RFC based on all the relevant evidence, including the medical records, observations of treating physicians and others, and an individual's own description of [his or] her limitations.” Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir. 2000)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545.

In the case at bar, the ALJ determined that Snyder met the insured status requirements through December 31, 2021. R at 1355. The ALJ then applied the first

4

step of the analysis and determined that Snyder had not engaged in substantial gainful activity from his alleged onset date of May 16, 2014. Id. At the second step, the ALJ concluded from the medical evidence that, through the date last insured, Snyder had the following severe impairments: status-post rectal cancer; obstructive sleep apnea; sleep disorder; coronary artery disease; mild cognitive impairment; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”); and anxiety. R at 1356. At the third step, the ALJ found that, through the date last insured, Snyder did not have an impairment or combination of impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. R at 13561358. At the fourth step, the ALJ determined that, through the date last insured, Snyder had the capacity to perform less than the full range of light work, specifically finding:

[Plaintiff] can push and pull as much as can lift and carry; occasional exposure to extreme heat or extreme cold; must avoid hazards such as unprotected heights or dangerous machinery; no operation of a motor vehicle to carry out job duties; simple, routine tasks; simple instructions at an SVP 2 level; no fast paced production work; no tandem tasks, meaning it would not be necessary to interact with coworkers to carry out job tasks; frequent contact with supervisors, coworkers and the public; but no customer service work.

R at 1358. Also at the fourth step, the ALJ determined that, through the date last insured, Snyder was not able to perform his past relevant work as a Help Desk Representative. R at 1368. At the fifth step, the ALJ determined that Snyder was capable of performing jobs available in the national economy as a cleaner, marker and bagger. R at 1369. Therefore, the ALJ concluded that Snyder was not disabled. Id.

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Commissioner's final determination not to award disability insurance benefits is subject to judicial review. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court has the power to “enter . . . a judgment affirming...