Kim M. v. Kijakazi

KIM M., ^[1] Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ^[2] Defendant.

Civil Action No. 20-cv-2072 (GMH)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 3, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

G. MICHAEL HARVEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Kim M. brought this action seeking to reverse the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security Kilolo Kijakazi (“Defendant” or “the Commissioner”), denying Plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff alleges that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred by (1) failing to undertake a function-by-function analysis in determining Plaintiff's RFC, (2) failing to properly consider record evidence that supported a limitation on Plaintiff's ability to stand and walk, and (3) applying an incorrect standard when assessing Plaintiff's subjective complaints. Plaintiff seeks reversal of the Commissioner's decision, or alternatively remand to the Social Security Administration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), on these grounds. The Commissioner argues that the ALJ properly determined Plaintiff's RFC based on substantial evidence.

Based on the parties' arguments and review of the record ^[3] Plaintiff's motion for reversal is denied, and Defendant's motion for a judgment of affirmance is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

To be eligible for SSI benefits under the Social Security Act, the Social Security Administration must find a claimant to be “disabled, ” meaning that the individual 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 which 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). To make that determination, an ALJ gathers evidence, holds a hearing, takes testimony, and performs the following five-step, sequential inquiry of the disability claim:

Step one: whether the claimant is engaging in “substantial gainful activity”;^[4]

Step two: whether the claimant has a “severe” medically-determinable physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments;^[5]

Step three: whether the claimant's impairment is equivalent to one of the disabling impairments listed in the appendix of the relevant regulation, 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (the “Listings”);

Step four: whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing his or her past relevant work;^[6] and

Step five: whether the claimant, in light of his or her age, education, work experience, and RFC-i.e., the most he or she is able to do notwithstanding his or her physical and mental limitations-in unable to perform another job available in the national economy.^[7]

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920, 404.1520; see also Butler v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 992, 997 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “An affirmative answer to question 1 or negative answers to questions 2 or 4 result in a determination of no disability. Affirmative answers to questions 3 or 5 establish disability.” Hines v. Bowen, 872 F.2d 56, 58 (4th Cir. 1989).

The claimant bears the burden of proof at the first four steps of the evaluation. Callahan v. Astrue, 786 F.Supp.2d 87, 89 (D.D.C. 2011). At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to identify specific jobs available in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Id. In making this determination, an ALJ may call a vocational expert to testify at the hearing as to whether, based on the claimant's RFC, he or she can perform other work that exists in the national economy. Id. at 90.

B. Plaintiff's Disability Claims and Procedural History

Plaintiff was born in September 1965. ECF No. 11-6 at 2. She completed the eighth grade and has previously worked as a hostess, home aide, and house cleaner. ECF No. 11-2 at 43-46. Plaintiff filed an application for supplemental security income in September 2017. ECF No. 11-2 at 16. In the application, Plaintiff claimed disability due to a knee cyst, foot pain, breast cyst, arthritis, and hip pain. ECF No. 11-6 at 14.

Plaintiff's application was initially denied in January 2018, and upon reconsideration in May 2018. ECF No. 11-2 at 16. She then requested a hearing before an ALJ, which was held in September 2019. Id. at 37. Both Plaintiff and an impartial vocational expert testified at the hearing. Id. at 42, 69. Plaintiff testified that she was disabled as a result of a pinched nerve in her shoulder, left foot pain, a bunion on her right foot, a cyst in her breast, knee pain, and a herniated disk in her back. ECF No. 11-2 at 48. Plaintiff also testified that although she had performed some work during the prior fifteen years, she never made more than $500 per year. Id. at 44-46. Plaintiff explained that she had not worked recently due to knee, foot, and back pain, which made it difficult to walk; a pinched nerve, which made it difficult to raise her arm; and a “trigger finger, ” which made it difficult to grasp things.^[8] ECF No. 11-2 at 47-49.

The ALJ then called the vocational expert to testify and asked whether jobs existed in the national economy for an individual the same age as Plaintiff, with the same work experience and education, who is able to perform light work but could never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, kneel, crouch and crawl; frequently handle with the left nondominant upper extremity; occasionally reach overhead with the left nondominant upper extremity; occasionally push and pull and operate foot controls with the bilateral lower extremities; never have concentrated exposure to temperature extremes; and never be exposed to workplace hazards, such as unprotected heights, dangerous moving machinery, and uneven ground. ECF No. 11-2 at 71. The vocational expert testified that such an individual could perform work as a cashier, front desk clerk, and weight recorder. Id. at 71-72.

C. The ALJ's Decision

The ALJ issued her decision denying benefits in October 2019. ECF No. 11-2 at 13-29. That decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council concluded that there was no basis for granting Plaintiff's request for review in June 2020. ECF No. 11-2 at 2. Because Plaintiff's arguments all relate to the ALJ's determination of Plaintiff's RFC, the following recitation focuses on that determination.

1. Substantial Gainful Employment, Severe Impairments, and the Listings At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since September 8, 2017, the date she applied for SSI. ECF No. 11-2 at 18. At step two, he found that Plaintiff had the following impairments that qualified as severe under the regulations: left plantar nerve lesion, status post left foot surgery, right knee degenerative joint disease, right knee osteoarthritis, and trigger finger. ECF No. 11-2 at 18.

At step three, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal the severity of any impairments in the Listings. Id. at 20. Specifically, she considered Listing 1.02 for major dysfunction of one or more joints due to any cause and concluded that Plaintiff's knee and foot impairments did not meet this listing because the record evidence did not indicate that Plaintiff was unable to ambulate effectively, generally defined as “having insufficient lower extremity functioning to permit independent ambulation without the use of a hand-held assistive device that limits the functioning of both upper extremities.” Id. The ALJ explained that the record evidence was inconsistent regarding whether Plaintiff required the use of an assistive device at all, and there was no evidence that Plaintiff used an assistive device that limited the functioning of both upper extremities. Id. The ALJ also concluded that Plaintiff's trigger finger did not meet Listing 1.02 because the record evidence did not include findings on appropriate medically acceptable imaging of joint space narrowing, bony destruction, or ankylosis, resulting in the inability to perform fine and gross movements effectively. Id.

2. Plaintiff's RFC

At step four of the inquiry, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff had the following RFC:

[Plaintiff] has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 416.967(b) except that she can never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; she can occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, kneel, crouch, and crawl; she can frequently finger with the left nondominant upper extremity; she can occasionally reach overhead with the left nondominant upper extremity; she can occasionally push and pull and operate foot controls with the bilateral lower extremities; she must avoid concentrated exposure to temperature extremes; and she must avoid all exposure to workplace hazards such as unprotected heights, dangerous moving machinery, and uneven ground.

ECF No. 11-2 at 21. The regulations define “light work” as involving “lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds.... [A] job is in this category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b). More specifically, “the full range of light work requires standing or walking, off and on, for . . . approximately 6 hours of an 8-hour workday.” Titles II and XVI: Determining Capability to do Other Work-the Medical-Vocational Rules of Appendix 2, Social Security Ruling 83-10 [hereinafter, SSR 83-10], 1983 WL 31251, at *5-6 (S.S.A. Jan. 1, 1983).

In determining that RFC,...