Lucille B. v. O'Malley

1

LUCILLE B., Plaintiff v. MARTIN O'MALLEY,^[1] Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant

Civil Action No. 24-375

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

October 31, 2024

MEMORANDUM

CAROL SANDRA MOORE WELLS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Lucille B. (“Plaintiff”) seeks judicial review, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), of the Social Security Administration Commissioner's (“the Commissioner”) final decision, denying her claim for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff filed a brief supporting her request for review, the Commissioner responded to it, and Plaintiff has filed a reply brief. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Request for Review will be granted, and Judgment will be entered in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY^[2]

On March 6, 2015, Plaintiff applied for DIB, alleging disability beginning on that same date, due to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), depression carpal tunnel syndrome (“CTS”), fibromyalgia memory loss, disc herniation, dextroscoliosis, temporomandibular joint dysfunction, diverticulosis, and gastrointestinal reflux disorder (“GERD”). R. at 11, 200-03. The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) initially denied Plaintiff's claim, on July 13, 2015, R. at 11, so Plaintiff requested a hearing. Id. at 11, 164. On October 17, 2017, Plaintiff appeared before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Christine McCafferty, id. at 675, who determined that Plaintiff had not been under a disability from March 6, 2015, through November 7, 2017, the date of her decision. Id. at 25, 120-140. The Appeals Council (“the AC') denied Plaintiff's request for review, on April 5, 2019, making ALJ McCafferty's findings the Commissioner's final determination. Id. at 1416. Plaintiff sought review of that decision from this court on May 30, 2019, including a claim that ALJ McCafferty was not properly appointed under the Constitution's Appointments Clause. Id. at 663-66. United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa remanded the case on February 26, 2020, pursuant to this circuit's decision in Cirko v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 948 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 2020). Id. On July 7, 2020, the AC vacated the Commissioner's final decision and remanded the case for the ALJ to conduct further proceedings consistent with Judge Caracappa's order. Id. at 669-70.

On November 16, 2020, due to COVID-19 precautions, Plaintiff appeared telephonically before ALJ Marc Silverman, who considered Plaintiff's consolidated claims. Id. at 607. Plaintiff, represented by an attorney, and vocational expert (“VE”) Agnes Klosinski Gallen, testified at the hearing. Id. On February 3, 2021, ALJ Silverman issued a partially favorable decision; he determined that Plaintiff was not disabled prior to July 12, 2019, but became disabled on that date, and continued to be disabled through February 3, 2021, the date of his decision. Id. at 590, 1425, 1444. Plaintiff sought judicial review of that decision from this court on May 19, 2021. On November 22, 2021, the Commissioner filed a motion to remand, which United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret granted. Id. at 1455.

On May 23, 2022, the AC entered an order affirming ALJ Silverman's finding that Plaintiff was disabled beginning July 12, 2019, vacating his decision only concerning the issue of disability prior to that date, and remanding the case for further evaluation and a new decision. Id. at 146263. On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff appeared, by video teleconference, before ALJ Silverman for an administrative hearing. Id. at 1400. Plaintiff, represented by an attorney, and VE Brian Bierley, testified at the hearing. Id. On September 27, 2023, ALJ Silverman, using the sequential evaluation process (“SEP') for disability,1F^[3]issued an unfavorable decision. Id. at 1389. His decision determined that Plaintiff was not disabled, from March 6, 2015, through July 11, 2019. Id. Plaintiff sought judicial review of that determination from this court on January 25, 2024. Both parties consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Personal History

Plaintiff, born on July 13, 1964, was 54 years old on July 12, 2019, the date on which the ALJ determined she became disabled. R. at 590, 1388-89. She resides with her husband, mother, and two adult children. Id. at 624.

B. Plaintiff's Testimony

At the November 16, 2020 hearing,^[4] Plaintiff testified regarding limitations that she alleges result from physical impairments and prevent full-time employment. Plaintiff testified that she worked approximately five hours a week in her family's business as its secretary/treasurer.^[5]R. at 615. However, she never worked full-time for the business. Id. at 616. Plaintiff discussed her other duties for the business, which included lifting dog food and dogs, that weigh between 25-30 pounds. Id.

Plaintiff testified that physically, it is too painful for her to work. Id. at 619. Her whole body is now “very, very weak,” she frequently drops objects; her back issues prevent overhead lifting. Id. She frequently drops objects, because she has a hard time gripping them. Id. at 620, 623-24. Going up and down the steps is painful for her knees, back, neck, and shoulders. Id. at 620. Her back pain means that she can no longer lift dogs or dog food. Id. The pain in her neck, hands, wrists, and back makes using a computer and keyboard very difficult. Id. at 625. Plaintiff testified that, since 2015, these conditions, have prevented her from walking more than fifteen to twenty minutes before requiring a break. Id. at 623. She cannot sit for more than ten minutes before her back and knees become painful. Id. Pain injections, physical therapy, and surgeries on her wrists and knee have not had any lasting results in reducing her pain. Id. at 620-21.

Mentally, Plaintiff testified that she cannot “think straight.” Id. at 619. Plaintiff elaborated that her inability to focus and concentrate prevented her from making the deposits for the family business. Id. at 620. She has been diagnosed with several mental health impairments, including Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”), anxiety, and depression. Id. at 621. Plaintiff is taking medications for her impairments that make her tired.^[6]Id. at 622.

Plaintiff testified that she cannot do household chores such as cooking, cleaning, and grocery shopping. Id. at 625. She requires assistance with her hygiene, showering, and dressing. Id.

Plaintiff has been diagnosed with incontinence and must wear a pad that requires frequent changing. Id. at 621. Her anemia diagnosis leaves her exhausted, and she has difficulty keeping her eyes open throughout the day. Id. at 625.

C. Vocational Expert's Testimony

At the November 16, 2020 administrative hearing, VE Agnes Klosinski Gallen characterized Plaintiff's past work as an animal caretaker, a semi-skilled^[7]job performed at the medium^[8]level of exertion. R. at 627.

ALJ Silverman's hypothetical scenario asked VE Gallen to consider an individual of Plaintiff's age, education, and past work experience, limited to light^[9]work, with the following abilities and limitations:

no more than frequent repetitive reaching, fingering, and handling. And limited to simple, routine tasks, with only occasional changes in a work setting.

Id. VE Gallen replied that, given these restrictions, the hypothetical individual could not perform the past work described. Id.

At the July 17, 2023 administrative hearing, ALJ Silverman adopted VE Gallen's testimony solely to Plaintiff's past work as an animal caretaker. R. at 1406. He then asked VE Brian Bierley to consider a hypothetical individual of Plaintiff's age, education, and past work experience, limited to light work, with the following abilities and limitations:

no more than frequent repetitive reaching, fingering, and handling. Limited to simple tasks in a routine work environment, and limited to low stress work, which is defined as routine work with no more than occasional changes in the work.

Id. at 1408. VE Bierley replied that the hypothetical individual could perform the following light and unskilled^[10] jobs: (1) machine feeder, 33,000 positions nationally; (2) line attendant, 36,000 positions nationally; and (3) press tender, 32,000 positions nationally.^[11]Id. at 1409-10.

III. THE ALJ'S FINDINGS

In his decision, the ALJ issued the following findings:

1. [Plaintiff] meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through December 31, 2024.

2. [Plaintiff] has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 6, 2015, the alleged onset date (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).

3. [Plaintiff] has the following severe impairments: right shoulder bursitis; fibromyalgia; bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome; status post bilateral carpal tunnel release degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine; and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (20 CFR 404.1520(c)).

4. [Plaintiff] does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).

5. After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that [Plaintiff] has the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) except no more than frequent, repetitive reaching, fingering, and handling; limited to simple tasks in a routine work environment; and limited to low stress work, which is defined as routine work with no more than occasional changes in the work.

6. [Plaintiff] is unable to perform any past relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565).

7. [Plaintiff]

...