Julia O. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

JULIA DENISE O., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.¹

1:18-CV-1336

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

December 16, 2019

APPEARANCES:

LEGAL AID SOCIETY

OF NORTHEASTERN NY

Attorneys for Plaintiff

40 New Street

Saratoga Springs, NY 12866

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Attorneys for Defendant

15 Sudbury Street, Suite 625

Boston, MA 02203

OF COUNSEL:

ROSE PUANANI LANDAU, ESQ.

DANIEL STICE TARABELLI, ESQ.

Special Ass't United States Attorney

DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Julia O.² ("plaintiff" or "claimant") brings this action seeking review of a final decision by defendant Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "defendant") denying her applications for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") and Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). Defendant has filed a certified copy of the Administrative Record and both parties have briefed the matter.³ Plaintiff's appeal will be considered on the basis of these submissions without oral argument.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 13, 2015,⁴ plaintiff filed applications for SSI and DIB alleging that her heart condition with quadruple bypass, crushed right foot, non-cancerous kidney tumor, lump in her breast, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, neurological issues, anxiety, and depression rendered her disabled beginning on November 1, 2013. R. at 124-25, 135-36, 213.⁵

On October 29, 2015, the Commissioner denied both applications. R. at 137-40. At plaintiff's request, defendant ordered an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") to conduct a de novo review of plaintiff's application for benefits. Id. at 137-40, 145-46.

On February 13, 2018, ALJ Andrew Soltes, Jr. presided over a hearing on plaintiff'sclaim. R. at 60-112. Plaintiff, represented by attorney Rose Landau, appeared in person and testified. Id. The ALJ also heard testimony from Vocational Expert ("VE") Thomas Nimberger. Id.

On May 1, 2018, the ALJ issued a written decision granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's benefits claim. R. at 16-29. As relevant here, the ALJ rejected plaintiff's claim of disability between November 1, 2013, her alleged onset date, and May 24, 2017, the day before her 55th birthday. Id. However, the ALJ also granted plaintiff benefits from that date forward. See id.

On September 19, 2018, the ALJ's partially favorable written decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review of the denial of benefits prior to May 24, 2017. R. at 1-4.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Standard of Review

A court's review of the Commissioner's final decision is limited to determining whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were applied. Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 305 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

"First, the Court reviews the Commissioner's decision to determine whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard." Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770, 773 (2d Cir. 1999). "Failure to apply the correct legal standards is grounds for reversal." Townley v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 109, 112 (2d Cir. 1984).

"Next, the Court examines the record to determine if the Commissioner's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence." Tejada, 167 F.3d at 773. "Substantial evidence means 'more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mindmight accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Poupore, 556 F.3d at 305 (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).

"To determine on appeal whether an ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence, a reviewing court considers the whole record, examining the evidence from both sides, because an analysis of the substantiality of the evidence must also include that which detracts from its weight." Williams v. Bowen, 859 F.2d 255, 258 (2d Cir. 1988).

If the Commissioner's disability determination is supported by substantial evidence, that determination is conclusive. See Williams, 859 F.2d at 258. Indeed, where evidence is deemed susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner's decision must be upheld—even if the court's independent review of the evidence may lead it to a different conclusion than the one reached by the Commissioner. Rutherford v. Schweiker, 685 F.2d 60, 62 (2d Cir. 1982).

B. The Commissioner's Disability Determination

The Act defines "disability" as the "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). In addition, the Act requires that a claimant's

physical or mental impairment or impairments [must be] of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work.

Section 423(d)(2)(A).

The ALJ must follow a five-step evaluation process in deciding whether an individual is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. At step one, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has engaged in substantial gainful activity. A claimant engaged in substantial gainful activity is not disabled, and is therefore not entitled to benefits. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(b).

If the claimant has not engaged in substantial gainful activity, then step two requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments which significantly restricts his or her physical or mental ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c).

If the claimant is found to suffer from a severe impairment or combination of impairments, then step three requires the ALJ to determine whether, based solely on medical evidence, the impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals an impairment listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations (the "Listings"). 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. A claimant whose impairment or combination of impairments meets or equals one of the Listings is "presumptively disabled." Martone, 70 F. Supp. 2d at 149.

If the claimant is not presumptively disabled, step four requires the ALJ to assess whether—despite the claimant's severe impairment—he has the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).

The burden of proof with regard to these first four steps is on the claimant. Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 1996). However, if it is determined that the claimant cannot perform her past relevant work, the burden shifts to the Commissioner for step five. Id.

This fifth step requires the ALJ to examine whether the claimant can do any type of work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g), 416.920(g). The regulations provide that factors such as aclaimant's age, physical ability, education, and previous work experience should be evaluated to determine whether a claimant retains the RFC to perform work in any of five categories of jobs: very heavy, heavy, medium, light, and sedentary. Perez, 77 F.3d at 46.

The Commissioner typically meets the burden at step five in one of two ways. If a claimant's impairments are primarily or exclusively exertional in nature, defendant may appropriately rely on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines contained in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 2. Roma v. Astrue, 468 F. App'x 16, 20 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order).

Commonly known as "the Grid" or "the Grids," the Medical-Vocational Guidelines are a collection of tables that "simplify and expedite the determination of disability" by offering "predeterminations of disability or non-disability for individual cases based on various combinations of residual functional capacity, age, education and work skill." Davis v. Shalala, 883 F. Supp. 828, 832 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (citation omitted)

Notably, the Commissioner may rely on the Guidelines even if a claimant suffers from one or more non-exertional impairments. See, e.g., Bapp v. Bowen, 802 F.3d 601, 603 (Cardamone, J.) ("[T]he mere existence of a nonexertional impairment does not automatically require the production of a vocational expert nor preclude reliance on the guidelines.").

However, if a claimant's non-exertional limitations "significantly diminish" his or her work capacity, the Commissioner "must introduce the testimony of a vocational expert (or other similar evidence) that jobs exist in the economy which claimant can obtain and perform." Chaparro v. Colvin, 156 F. Supp. 3d 517, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. The ALJ's Decision

Applying the five-step disability determination, the ALJ found that: (1) plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 1, 2013, the alleged onset date; (2) her myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest and brain anoxia, quadruple bypass surgery, neurological deficiencies, adjustment disorder, depressive disorder, and lower extremity post-trauma were severe impairments within the meaning of the Regulations; and that (3) these impairments, whether considered individually or in combination, did not meet or equal any of the Listings. R. at 18-20.

At step four, the ALJ determined that plaintiff's impairments caused exertional and non-exertional limitations. R. at 20-26. However, the ALJ found that plaintiff retained the RFC to

perform light work, . . . except that she can [only] perform occasional stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; occasional climbing of ramps and stairs; [and] no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. She cannot

...