Furey v. Saul

501 F.Supp.3d 29

Dena Marie FUREY, Plaintiff,

v.Andrew SAUL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 19-cv-11514-ADB

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Signed November 13, 2020

Nancy J. Lorenz, Greater Boston Legal Services, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.

Hugh Dun Rappaport, Social Security Administration-Office of the General Counsel, Boston, MA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BURROUGHS, D.J.

Plaintiff Dena Marie Furey brings this action pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner") denying her claim for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits. Currently pending are Ms. Furey's motion to reverse the Commissioner's decision denying her SSI benefits, [ECF No. 18], and the Commissioner's cross-motion for an order affirming the decision, [ECF No. 27]. For the reasons described herein, the Court finds that the Administrative Law Judge erred by failing to conduct the analysis required by the Court's previous remand Order and therefore GRANTS Ms. Furey's motion to reverse, [ECF No. 18], and DENIES the Commissioner's motion to affirm, [ECF No. 27].

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework: Five-Step Process to Evaluate Disability Claims

"The Social Security Administration is the federal agency charged with administering both the Social Security disability benefits program, which provides disability insurance for covered workers, and the Supplemental Security Income program, which provides assistance for the indigent aged and disabled." Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 423, 1381a ).

The Social Security Act (the "Act") provides that an individual shall be considered to be "disabled" if he or she is:

unable 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 that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.

42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A) ; see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). The disability must be severe, such that the claimant is unable to do his or her previous work or any other substantial gainful activity that exists in the national economy. See 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(B) ; 20 C.F.R. § 416.905.

When evaluating a disability claim under the Act, the Commissioner uses a five-step process, which the First Circuit has explained as follows:

All five steps are not applied to every applicant, as the determination may be concluded at any step along the process. The steps are: 1) if the applicant is engaged in substantial gainful work activity, the application is denied; 2) if the applicant does not have, or has not had within the relevant time period, a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the application is denied; 3) if the impairment meets the conditions for one of the "listed" impairments in the Social Security regulations, then the application is granted; 4) if the applicant's "residual functional capacity" is such that he or she can still perform past relevant work, then the application is denied; 5) if the applicant, given his or her residual functional capacity, education, work experience, and age, is unable to do any other work, the application is granted.

Seavey, 276 F.3d at 5 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.920).

B. Procedural Background

Ms. Furey first sought benefits more than a decade ago and is before the Court for the third time.

Ms. Furey applied for Social Security Disability Insurance ("SSDI") benefits and SSI benefits on July 16, 2009 and August 6, 2009, respectively. [R. 265–77].¹ In her initial applications, she alleged that she became disabled on December 1, 2005. [R. 271]. The Social Security Administration (the "SSA") denied Ms. Furey's applications on December 14, 2009, [R. 158–63], and again upon reconsideration on July 16, 2010, [R. 164–69]. Thereafter, Ms. Furey requested an administrative hearing, and a hearing took place before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Constance D. Carter on June 14, 2011. [R. 45–105]. At the hearing, Ms. Furey amended her application to allege an onset date of October 31, 2008, which, because of her date last insured, resulted in an abandonment of her SSDI claim. See [R. 48; R. 139]. On July 26, 2011, ALJ Carter issued a decision finding that Ms. Furey was not disabled. [R. 136–52].

Ms. Furey sought review from the SSA Appeals Council (the "AC"), [R. 236–42], and on May 8, 2012, the AC remanded the case. [R. 153–57]. The AC concluded that ALJ Carter's hearing decision did not contain "adequate evaluation of the treating source opinion of Dr. Stephen Kleinman" and used the term "low stress setting," which was impermissibly vague. [R. 154–55]. On remand, ALJ Carter was instructed to: further evaluate Ms. Furey's mental impairments ; give further consideration to Ms. Furey's maximum residual functional capacity ("RFC") and provide additional explanation regarding assessed limitations; and, if warranted, obtain additional evidence from a vocational expert regarding the relationship between Ms. Furey's limitations and her ability to work. [R. 155].

ALJ Carter convened a second hearing on February 19, 2013, [R. 106–29], and, on March 20, 2013, issued a second decision denying Ms. Furey's claim for benefits, [R. 12–38]. Ms. Furey again sought review from the AC but this time, her request for review was denied. [R. 1–9]. Ms. Furey then filed a complaint with this Court. On September 3, 2015, the Court vacated the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. [R. 996–1021]. Specifically, the Court found that remand was necessary because ALJ Carter had erred by "inappropriately discounting the opinion of Furey's treating psychiatrist without going through the analysis required when a treating source opinion is not given controlling weight ...," "not addressing those portions of a vocational expert's testimony that called into question [Ms.] Furey's ability to engage in substantial gainful activity ...," and "improperly making an adverse credibility finding against [Ms.] Furey by conflating her ability to attend school part-time and raise her child with an ability to work full-time, without sufficiently analyzing the similarities and differences between the skills and functional capacity required for each of those tasks." [R. 996–97].

After the Court's remand, a third administrative hearing took place on October 20, 2016 before ALJ Sean Teehan. [R. 897–953]. ALJ Teehan issued a decision on January 4, 2017 denying Ms. Furey's application for benefits. [836–96]. The decision became final when Ms. Furey failed to file written exceptions and the AC declined to independently review the ALJ's decision. See [R. 836–38]. Ms. Furey appealed the decision to this Court but before the Court ruled on the parties’ cross-motions to reverse and affirm, the Commissioner requested a remand, and, on February 13, 2018, the Court remanded with instructions that the case be assigned to an ALJ who had not previously been involved in the case. [R. 1622–23]. The Court also ordered the AC to direct the newly-assigned ALJ to "consider the issues raised in this remand as well as prior remands; to evaluate the updated evidence, taking care to acknowledge all treating source opinions in the record, including the 2011 and 2013 opinions of Dr. Kleinman; and to complete the analysis accordingly." [Id. ]. The AC provided such instructions. See [R. 1615–20].

On January 25, 2019, a fourth hearing was held, this time before ALJ Alexander Klibaner. [R. 1552–1612]. Ms. Furey, who was represented by counsel, appeared and testified at the hearing, as did medical expert Dr. Neli Cohen ("ME Cohen") and vocational expert Michelle Bishop ("VE Bishop"). See [id. ]. ALJ Klibaner issued a decision on March 14, 2019, concluding that Ms. Furey was not disabled and therefore not entitled to SSI benefits. [R. 1500–51]. His decision became final on May 14, 2019 and Ms. Furey timely filed a complaint with this Court on July 10, 2019, seeking review of the Commissioner's decision pursuant to section 205(g) of the Act. [ECF No. 1].

C. Factual Background

Ms. Furey was born in July 1978; she was thirty years old when she originally applied for benefits and is currently forty-two years old. [R. 267]. Ms. Furey has not been employed since her initial application and, although the record is inconsistent regarding the precise details of her prior work history, it is clear that she last worked consistently in the early 2000s as a corrections officer.²

Beginning in 2009, Ms. Furey enrolled at a number of colleges in and around Boston, taking both in-person and online classes and generally attending classes for approximately two-to-three hours per day two-to-three days per week. See generally [R. 45–105, R. 106–29, R. 897–953, R. 1552–1612]. She earned an associate degree from Bunker Hill Community College,³ [R. 1208], a bachelor's degree from the University of Massachusetts Boston ("UMass Boston"), [R. 1205–07], and, at the time of her January 2019 hearing, was working towards a master's degree from UMass Boston, [R. 1508].

Ms. Furey has resided in various forms of supportive housing around the Boston area, [R. 61–62 (transitional housing), R. 109 (supporting living), R. 914 (subsidized housing)], and at the time of ALJ Klibaner's decision, resided in Roxbury, Massachusetts, [R. 1759]. She has two children: her son, who is currently eleven years old, has always lived with her, [R. 1513, R. 1540], but her older daughter has lived with Ms. Furey's parents since she was very young, [R. 1598]. Ms. Furey generally gets around by walking, utilizing public transportation, and/or using a private transportation service for individuals with medical issues. [R. 1591].

D. Medical Evidence

Given how long Ms. Furey has been seeking SSI benefits, there...