Peterson v. Kijakazi

1

GARY PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

No. 3:22-CV-00026 (VLB)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

January 20, 2023

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING MOTION FOR ORDER REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION FOR REMAND FOR A HEARING, AND DENYING MOTION AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

VANESSA L. BRYANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is an administrative appeal filed by Plaintiff Gary Peterson (“Claimant”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 405(g) following the denial of his applications for Title II disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits.^[1]Claimant moves for an order reversing the decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) on the basis that Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Eskunder Boyd erred by (a) finding at Step Three of the sequential evaluation process that Claimant's chronic heart failure does not equal Listing 4.02, (b) improperly evaluating medical opinion evidence, and (c) incorrectly determining Claimant's residual functional capacity and subsequently failing to find him disabled under the Medical Vocational Guidelines. (Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Reverse (“Pl.'s Mem.”) 6-15, ECF No. 15.) Claimant asks the Court to reverse the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits or, in the alternative, to remand so that Claimant may receive a full and fair hearing. (Pl.'s Mot Reverse 1, ECF No. 15.) The Commissioner moves to affirm the ALJ's decision, arguing the decision is supported by substantial evidence. (Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Affirm (“Def.'s Mem.”) 5-14, ECF No. 17.)

For the following reasons, Claimant's Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner or, in the Alternative, Motion for Remand for a Hearing is GRANTED, and the Commissioner's Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Claimant was born on December 16, 1969 and alleges his disabilities began on July 1, 2019 when he was 49 years old. (R. 28, 31.)^[2]On February 20, 2020, Claimant applied for both DIB and SSI benefits. (R. 176-88.) Claimant's application was initially denied on June 16, 2020, (R. 105-08), and again upon reconsideration on October 8, 2020, (R. 120-26).

Claimant requested a hearing and appeared via telephone before ALJ Boyd on February 18, 2021. (R. 37-65.) On February 23, 2021, the ALJ determined Claimant was not disabled under the meaning of the Social Security Act. (R. 23-32.) Claimant appealed the decision of the ALJ on March 4, 2021, (R. at 173-75), but the Appeals Council denied his request for review on November 9, 2021, rendering the ALJ's decision final, (R. 5-10).

Claimant filed this action on January 6, 2022. (Compl., ECF. No. 1.) Claimant filed a Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner or, in the Alternative, Motion for Remand for a Hearing. (Pl.'s Mot. Reverse.) The Commissioner filed a Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner. (Comm'r Mot. Affirm, ECF No. 17.)

A. Relevant Medical History

The medical record reflects that Claimant suffers from, inter alia, diabetes mellitus, chronic heart failure/cardiomyopathy, and obesity. The Court will address Claimant's relevant medical history only as it relates to issues raised by the parties.

B. ALJ Hearing

At the telephonic hearing before the ALJ, the Claimant testified at length about the severity of his health conditions and the impact they have had on his life, particularly his ability to work. (R. 47-53.) Also, during the hearing, a vocational expert appeared. (R. 57-64.) She testified that a hypothetical person of Claimant's age, education, and vocational background, with the capacity to perform only light work, would not be able to do Claimant's past relevant work. (R. 59.) The vocational expert testified to other jobs in the national economy that the hypothetical individual could perform, including the jobs of garment sorter, ticket maker, and shirt folder. (Id.) The vocational expert also testified that, if the individual in the hypothetical required a sit/stand option whereby he could sit for thirty to sixty minutes, stand for five minutes, and then resume sitting, and was further limited to standing and walking for up to four hours and sitting for up to six hours total, the jobs she previously identified would still remain available. (R. 60.)

C. Medical Opinion Evidence

Three medical opinions were presented in the record before the ALJ: an opinion offered by Claimant's treating cardiologist and opinions provided by two state agency medical consultants.

The first state agency medical consultant, Dr. Edward Ringel, issued two Disability Determination Explanation reports^[3] on June 15, 2020, at the initial level of consideration of Claimant's applications. (R. 74-87.) The assessed medical evidence included records from Claimant's primary care physician, Dr. Tao-Nan Chi; Claimant's endocrinologist, Dr. Pamela Randolph; and Claimant's cardiologist, Dr. Boris Sheynberg. (R. 74-75, 81-82.) Dr. Ringel found that Claimant suffers from multiple medically determinable impairments, including severe impairments of heart failure, obesity, and diabetes mellitus. (Id.) Dr. Ringel found that Claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of his symptom of shortness of breath were substantiated by the objective medical evidence. (R. 77, 84.) When evaluating Claimant's residual functional capacity (“RFC”), ^[4] Dr. Ringel found that Claimant has exertional limitations, including only occasional lifting of up to twenty pounds and frequent lifting up to ten pounds. (R. 77, 84.)

He also found that Claimant can only stand and/or walk for a total of two hours, and can only sit for about six hours during an eight-hour workday. (Id.) Claimant's postural limitations include occasionally being able to stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, and climb ramps or stairs, and Claimant is never able to climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. (R. at 78, 85.) Dr. Ringel explained Claimant's exertional and postural limitations were a result of Claimant's obesity and cardiomyopathy. (R. 78, 85.) He also found Claimant should avoid thermal extremes due to having cardiac disease. (Id.) Dr. Ringel found that the medical evidence of record was sufficient to support his assessment of Claimant's residual functional capacity (“RFC”). (R. 76, 83.)

The second state agency medical consultant, Dr. Gerald Fette, issued his evaluations on October 8, 2020, upon reconsideration from the initial denial of Claimant's applications. (R. 90-103.) Dr. Fette assessed the same evidence as Dr. Ringel, along with additional medical evidence received from Dr. Chi and Dr. Sheynberg. (Compare R. at 90, 97 with R. 74-75, 81-82.) Claimant presented no new allegations or changes in condition upon reconsideration. (R. 95, 102.) Dr. Fette agreed with Dr. Ringel that Claimant suffered from severe heart failure, obesity, and diabetes, but also found an additional severe impairments of cardiomyopathy and essential hypertension. (R. at 92, 99.) Dr. Fette made most of the same findings as did Dr. Ringel in his evaluation of Claimant's RFC, but he differed in finding that, in addition to avoiding extreme cold and extreme hot temperatures, Claimant must also avoid concentrated exposure to irritants such as fumes, odors, dusts, gases, and poor ventilation, as well as avoid hazards (e.g., machinery, heights). (R. at 94, 101.)

Dr. Fette also concluded that Claimant can only stand and/or walk for a total of two hours, and sit for about six hours during an eight-hour workday. (Id.) Dr. Fette explained that his conclusions regarding Claimant's exertional, postural, and environmental limitations were supported by Claimant's history of dilated cardiomyopathy with reduced ejection fraction, complicated by obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. (Id.) Dr. Fette found that the limitations he identified, as well as Claimant's alleged onset date, were supported by the evidence in the record. (R. 95, 102.)

Finally, the ALJ considered the medical opinion of Claimant's treating cardiologist, Dr. Sheynberg. In what is available in the record of Dr. Sheynberg's opinion, he indicated that Claimant can only occasionally push or pull with his hands, and can frequently operate his foot controls. (R. 337.) Dr. Sheynberg indicated that Claimant can frequently use his hands for handling, feeling, fingering, and reaching. (Id.) Dr. Sheynberg further provided that Claimant can only occasionally lift and carry up to, and never more than, ten pounds of weight. (R. 334.) He found Claimant could never tolerate extreme cold, extreme heat, dust, odors, fumes, pulmonary irritants, vibrations, humidity and wetness, and unprotected heights.^[5] (R. 338.) Dr. Sheynberg found Claimant can occasionally move mechanical parts, and frequently operate a motor vehicle. (R. 338.) He also found that Claimant would likely be off task for twenty percent of a typical workday, and he anticipated that on average, Claimant's impairments or treatments would cause him to be absent from work more than four days per month. (R. 335, 338.)

D. The ALJ's Decision

On February 23, 2021, the ALJ made several findings in his decision, which are subject to review by this Court. First the ALJ found that Claimant meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through June 30, 2023. (R. 25.) Second, the ALJ found that Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since July 1, 2019, his alleged onset date. (Id.) Third, the ALJ found that Claimant has severe impairments consisting of cardiomyopathy/chronic heart failure, diabetes,...