Walters v. Saul
| Decision Date | 19 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | CV 19-3232 (AYS) |
| Parties | HEATHER MAE WALTERS, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff Heather Mae Walters (“Plaintiff” or “Walters”), commenced this action, pursuant to 42 § U.S.C. 405(g), for review of the final decision of Andrew Saul, the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”), which found that Plaintiff is not entitled to disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, (Docket Entry (“DE”) [16] [18]), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted and Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.
The facts of this case are drawn principally from Plaintiff's Complaint and the Administrative Record (“AR”).
Plaintiff was born in 1980 and was thirty-one years old during the onset of her disability. (AR 74.) Plaintiff graduated from high school, completed two years of college, and obtained an Associate Degree. (AR 74, 197.) She has prior work experience as a dental assistant, bookkeeper, bank teller, information booth attendant, and an in-client services employee for an environmental consulting firm. (AR 76, 197, 217.)
Plaintiff has three children: an infant, a toddler, and an older daughter. (AR 205.) Since the birth of her son in September 2012, Plaintiff could not work because she did not feel physically or mentally well. (AR 79.) Plaintiff reported that she felt “disconnected” and “off.” (Id.) In particular, Plaintiff suffered from anxiety and panic attacks, headaches, head spins, and dizziness. (AR 212.)
Plaintiff was referred to a neuropsychiatrist for extensive testing. (AR 79-80.) The testing did not “find[] anything physical;” rather, the neuropsychiatrist diagnosed Plaintiff with an anxiety disorder. (AR 80.) Plaintiff began seeing a psychiatrist for medication and a psychologist for therapy. (AR 81.) Plaintiff took Zoloft and Klonopin for her symptoms, which she experienced daily. (AR 213.) While this treatment helped Plaintiff feel more “connected ” she could not work because she was easily distracted and had difficulties adjusting to constant change. (AR 82-83 88.) Plaintiff noted that she did not have any physical limitations, such as sitting, standing, or walking. (AR 93.)
Plaintiff underwent a series of neuropsychological evaluations administered by Dr. Emily Roseman, Ph.D., affiliated with Stony Brook Medicine (“Stony Brook”), on November 14, 2013, December 16, 2013, and January 10, 2014. (AR 263-67, 380-85.) Plaintiff reported a history of attention weakness, learning difficulty, and a diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”). (AR 263.) Moreover, she reported an increased difficulty in thinking and attention skills following the birth of her son. (Id.) Plaintiff also stated that she stopped working in March 2012 because she was pregnant and had moved from state-to-state and was unable to find a job. (AR 264.) Dr. Roseman's evaluation found that Plaintiff had normal intellect at baseline, with a possible exacerbation of attentional weakness. (AR 265-66.) She recommended psychotherapy for Plaintiff to address her stressors. (AR 266.)
On June 20, 2014, Plaintiff began seeing Dr. Clarissa Bullitt, Ph.D., an affiliate with Stony Brook, who had previously provided her with psychotherapy. (AR 275.) During her sessions with Dr. Bullitt, Plaintiff described her stressors, which developed from her relationship with her husband, her finances and family's living arrangements, and issues related to parenting her daughter, who has ADHD. (AR 277-316.) Dr. Bullitt's treatment records note severe anxiety, stress, depression, obesity, headaches, and sleep deprivation. (AR 281, 283-284, 289, 292, 299.) Specifically, Dr. Bullitt found that Plaintiff's “significant anxiety interferes with her memory, concentration, thought process, judgment, affect regulation, and communication skills.” (AR 600.) Dr. Bullitt further opined that Plaintiff has moderate limitations interacting appropriately with the public, her supervisor and coworkers, and marked limitations responding appropriately to usual work situations and changes in a routine work setting. (AR 601.) She further opined that Plaintiff's “anxiety contributes to social phobia, communication, [and] affect impulsivity, ” and that Plaintiff “[d]oes not adapt well to change.” (AR 601.) Further, Dr. Bullitt stated that Plaintiff's “poorly sustained focus/concentration, significant distractibility, which combined with social anxiety and poor memory (all due to anxiety) make it virtually impossible for [Plaintiff] to work with others in a usual work environment.” (Id.)
On August 26, 2014, Plaintiff visited Dr. Karen Chen, M.D., a psychiatrist at Stony Brook. (AR 368.) On examination, Plaintiff had an anxious mood, rapid speech, and circumstantial associations. (AR 373.) On the other hand, Plaintiff's grooming was neat, her behavior was appropriate and cooperative, her eye contact was good, she showed an alert level of consciousness, she demonstrated coherent and logical thought processes, her insight and judgment were fair, her impulse control was good, her memory was intact, and her concentration and attention were fair. (AR 372.) Consequently, Dr. Chen recommended psychotherapy. (AR 373.)
On October 8, 2015, Plaintiff saw Dr. Ravi Ramasamy, M.D., a psychiatrist at Stony Brook. (AR 347-51.) At this time, Plaintiff reported that she had stopped taking Lexapro when she became pregnant, although this had helped her feel less anxious. (AR 347.) After her pregnancy ended, Plaintiff's obstetrician started her on Zoloft and suggested that she reestablish care with a psychiatrist. (Id.) Similar to Dr. Chen's observations, Dr. Ramasamy found that Plaintiff had neat grooming, normal speech, and a euthymic mood. (AR 349.) Dr. Ramasamy also determined that Plaintiff's physical examinations in the electronic record were within normal limits after his review. (AR 350.) Dr. Ramasamy increased the dosage of Plaintiff's Zoloft and also prescribed her Klonopin. (AR 350.) Plaintiff returned to Dr. Ramasamy in the subsequent months and his findings remained largely the same. (AR 339, 343-44.)
On December 24, 2015, Dr. Andrea Pollack, D.O., an internist, examined Plaintiff at the request of the Commissioner. (AR 319-22.) Plaintiff reported a history of asthma that did not require hospitalization or intubation and gastroesophageal reflux disease that improved after a gall bladder removal surgery in 2012. (AR 319.) Dr. Pollack noted that Plaintiff's blood pressure was elevated but a physical examination was otherwise unremarkable. (AR 320.) Dr. Pollack opined that Plaintiff should avoid smoke, dust, and other known respiratory irritants, heavy lifting, carrying, and exertion. (AR 322.)
On December 24, 2015, Dr Paul Herman, Ph.D., conducted a psychiatric evaluation of Plaintiff at the Commissioner's request. (AR 325-29.) Plaintiff reported a history of treatment for ADHD during her teenage years and a history of intermittent outpatient mental health treatment since 2013. (AR 325.) Her medication at this time included Zoloft and Klonopin and her symptomatology included sleep disturbance, decreased appetite, long-standing difficulties with attention and concentration, easily feeling overwhelmed, and having difficulties with sustaining attention and multitasking. (AR 325-26.) However, Plaintiff asserted that from a psychiatric and psychological perspective, she had no significant difficulties with her daily living activities despite her mental health symptoms. (AR 327.) Based on his findings during the examination, Dr. Herman opined that Plaintiff had no limitations in her abilities to follow and understand simple directions and instructions, learn and perform new and simple tasks, make appropriate simple work-related decisions, maintain a regular schedule, and relate adequately to others. (AR 327.) Dr. Herman further opined that Plaintiff had mild limitations in her abilities to deal with stress and to maintain attention and concentration at a level sufficient for low-level employment. (Id.)
On January 6, 2016, Plaintiff retuned to Dr. Ramasamy for a follow-up examination. (AR 333.) Although most of the findings remained the same as those reached after the examination that took place on October 8, 2015, Plaintiff complained of feeling anxious and depressed, and had unkempt grooming. (Id.) Dr. Ramasamy increased the dosage of Plaintiff's Zoloft. (AR 335.)
During Plaintiff's next visit on February 3, 2016, Dr. Ramasamy reported that Plaintiff had both an anxious and euthymic mood, her behavior was appropriate and cooperative, her eye contact was good, her level of consciousness was alert, her thought processes were coherent and logical, her abstractions were intact, her orientation was full, her insight and judgment were fair, her impulse control was good, her memory was intact, and her concentration and attention were fair. (AR 355-56.) During her following examination on February 29, 2016, Plaintiff complained that she was unable to carry out all of her daily tasks, had feelings of helplessness and overwhelming meltdowns, and felt unable to take care of others because of her depression and anxiety. (AR 579.) Dr. Ramasamy decided to increase Plaintiff's prescription of Zoloft and advised her to continue taking Klonopin as needed. (AR 579.)
On June 5,...
To continue reading
Request your trial