Aponte v. Kijakazi

692 F.Supp.3d 257

Rosalinda APONTE, Plaintiff, v. Kilolo KIJAKAZI, Defendant.

22 Civ. 1240 (GWG)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

Signed September 19, 2023

J. Anklowitz, Pasternack, Tilker, Ziegler, Walsh, Stanton & Roman, LLP, Brentwood, NY, for Plaintiff.

Joseph Anthony Pantoja, U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Rosalinda Aponte brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to obtain judicial review of the February 16, 2021 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") under the Social Security Act ("Act"). Both parties have moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).¹ For the reasons that follow, Aponte's motion is denied, and the Commissioner's cross-motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

In September 2019, Aponte filed for DIB, alleging that she was disabled due to fibromyalgia, lower back pain, right leg pain, and depression. SSA Admin. Record, filed Aug. 30, 2022 (Docket # 17) ("R."), at 177, 208. On December 10, 2019, Aponte's claim was denied, R. 83, and on April 29, 2020, Aponte's claim was denied again on reconsideration, R. 91. Aponte requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). R. 172. Aponte testified at a hearing before the ALJ on November 3, 2020, where she was represented by counsel. R. 30, 34. In a decision issued on February 16, 2021, the ALJ found that Aponte was not disabled. R. 15, 25. On December 14, 2021, the Appeals Council denied Aponte's request for appeal. R. 1. On February 14, 2022, Aponte filed the instant action challenging the ALJ's decision. Complaint, filed Feb. 14, 2022 (Docket # 1).

B. The Hearings Before the ALJ

Aponte testified telephonically at the hearing before the ALJ with the assistance of a Spanish interpreter. See R. 33, 37. Also testifying at the hearing was Vocational Expert ("VE") Whitney Eng. R. 32.

Aponte testified that she was 48 years old at the time of the hearing, R. 37; that she had not completed tenth grade; and she had no GED, R. 38. She was not working, R. 39, and had not worked since 2018, R. 40. Her last job had involved assembling tools and machines, R. 40, and her previous jobs included packing fruit and organizing shelves, R. 40-41.

Aponte had seen a therapist for mental health concerns. R. 42-43. She also had "pain in [her] bones, because of lumbar pain, [and] pain in [her] lower back" that made it "difficult for [her] to stand in one place." R. 44. She could sit for thirty minutes at a time. R. 44-45. She could lift up to the weight of a gallon of milk. R. 45. She "feel[s] drowsy and dizzy for most of the day" due to her medications, and that "pain makes it impossible for [her] to work." R. 45. Her ability to work was also impaired by her "depression, . . . anxiety, . . . [and] physical exhaustion." R. 46.

The VE testified that Aponte's past work could be classified as hand packager, fruit packer, and assembler, which fell into the light or medium work categories. R. 47. She testified that a hypothetical person of the same age, education, and experience as Aponte would not be able to perform Aponte's past work if limited to a "light exertional level" with the restrictions "that they [could] lift and/or or carry 20 pounds occasionally, 10 pounds frequently[,] . . . [could] sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday, stand or walk for six hours in an eight-hour workday[,] . . . [could] occasionally climb ramps and stairs, but should never climb ladders and scaffolds[,] . . . [could] occasionally balance and stoop[,] . . . should never kneel, crouch or crawl[,] . . . should avoid reaching overhead, but [could] frequently reach, push and pull in all other directions, up to the limits of light work," and "should work in a low-stress environment, defined as occasional use of judgment, occasional decision making, and occasional changes in the work setting," while able to "perform simple and routine tasks." R. 47-48. The VE testified that such a person would, however, be able to perform the light work of retail marker, plastic products assembler, or ticket taker, all of which were available in the national economy. R. 48.

The VE testified that only the job of ticket taker would be eliminated if such a person was only able "to have contact with supervisors, co-workers, and the general public on an occasional basis." R. 50. If the individual could only have "less than occasional" contact with others, the VE testified that the person would be precluded from all work. Id. The VE testified that the same individual could not perform Aponte's past work if limited to sedentary exertion. R. 49. The VE testified that an individual limited to such conditions could, however, perform the jobs of escort vehicle driver, addressing clerk, or document preparer. Id.

C. The Medical Evidence

Both Aponte and the Commissioner have provided detailed summaries of the medical evidence. See Aponte Mem. at 3-8; Comm'r Mem. at 2-9. The Court directed the parties to specify any objections they had to the opposing party's summary of the record. See Scheduling Order, dated June 1, 2022 (Docket # 16). Neither party has done so. Accordingly, we adopt the parties' summaries of the medical evidence as accurate and complete for the purposes of the issues raised in this suit. We discuss the medical evidence pertinent to the adjudication of the instant case in Section III below.

D. The ALJ's Decision

The ALJ denied Aponte's application on February 16, 2021, determining that Aponte "ha[d] not been under a disability within the meaning of the Social Security Act from January 1, 2019, through the date of [the] decision." R. 16, 25.

Following the five-step test set forth in the Social Security Administration ("SSA") regulations, the ALJ found that Aponte "[would] meet[ ] the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2023," and "ha[d] not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 1, 2019, the alleged onset date." R. 17. At step two, the ALJ found that Aponte had the "severe impairments" of "obesity, fibromyalgia, degenerative disc disease, degenerative joint disease, rotator cuff impingement syndrome, patellofemoral arthritis, anxiety disorder, and depressive disorder." R. 17. At step three, the ALJ found that Aponte "[did] not have an impairment or combination of impairments that me[t] or medically equal[ed] the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1." R. 18. The ALJ found that "[w]hile the claimant may have difficulties in performing highly complex work tasks, she should be able to perform unskilled work tasks." R. 19.

Before moving on to step four, the ALJ assessed Aponte's residual functional capacity ("RFC") for the relevant period. R. 20. The ALJ found that Aponte had the capacity "to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) in that [she could] lift and or carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds frequently[,] . . . [could] sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday, stand and or walk for six hours in an eight hour workday[,] . . . [could] occasionally climb ramps and stairs but should never climb ladders and scaffolds[,] . . . [could] occasionally balance and stoop[,] . . . should never kneel, crouch and crawl[,] . . . should avoid reaching overhead but [could] frequently reach, push and pull in all other directions up to the limits of light work[,] . . . should work in a low stress environment defined as occasional use of judgment, occasional decision-making, and occasional changes in work setting[,]" and could "perform simple and routine tasks." R. 20.

At step four, the ALJ found that Aponte was "unable to perform any past relevant work" based on the testimony of the VE. R. 23-24. At step five, the ALJ found that, "considering [her] age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity," Aponte was "capable of making a successful adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy." R. 25. The ALJ determined that "[a] finding of 'not disabled' [was] therefore appropriate under the framework of the [SSA]." Id. Thus, he ruled that Aponte "ha[d] not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from January 1, 2019, through the date of [the] decision." Id.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Scope of Judicial Review

A court reviewing a final decision by the Commissioner "is limited to determining whether the [Commissioner's] conclusions were supported by substantial evidence in the record and were based on a correct legal standard." Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (punctuation omitted); accord Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 374-75 (2d Cir. 2015) (per curiam); see generally 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ("The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive . . . ."). Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (punctuation omitted) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)); accord Greek, 802 F.3d at 375; Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 127 (2d Cir. 2008). "It means — and means only — such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154, 203 L.Ed.2d 504 (2019) (punctuation omitted). "[T]he threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high." Id.

As such, it is not a reviewing court's function "to determine de novo whether [a claimant] is disabled." Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1998) (punctuation omitted); accord Cage v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 692 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 570 U.S. 919, 133 S.Ct. 2881, 186...