Seymour v. Saul

JOHN WILLIAM SEYMOUR, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.^[1]

No. 19 Civ. 2466 (KMK)(PED)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

August 24, 2020

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAUL E. DAVISON, U.S.M.J.

TO THE HONORABLE KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff John Seymour brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) challenging the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying his application for benefits on the ground that he is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act (the "SSA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 423 et seq. The period at issue begins February 8, 2008, the date plaintiff alleges he became disabled, and ends on December 31, 2011, the date he was last insured for disability benefits. The matter is before me pursuant to an Order of Reference entered March 28, 2019 (Dkt. #6).

Presently before this Court are the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Dkt. #13 (plaintiffs motion), #14 (plaintiffs memorandum of law), #15 (defendant's cross-motion), #16 (defendant's memorandum of law) and #17 (plaintiffs reply)). Plaintiff argues, as the basis for his motion, that the ALJ failed to provide "good reasons" for rejecting the opinions of treating physicians Dr. John Lyden and Dr. Miriam Kanter. Dkt. #14, at 17-24. Defendant asserts, in response, that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision. Dkt. #16, at 12-25. For the reasons set forth below, I respectfully recommend that plaintiffs motion be DENIED and that defendant's motion be GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the administrative record ("R") of the Social Security Administration, filed by defendant on July 25, 2019 (Dkt. #8).^[2]

A. Procedural History

On or about August 28, 2009, plaintiff filed his initial application for disability benefits, wherein he alleged he had been unable to work since February 8, 2008 due to torn menisci and arthritis in both knees. R. 136-40, 159. His claim was administratively denied on or about December 17 2009; plaintiff timely requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). R. 78-87. On October 18, 2010, plaintiff appeared (with counsel) and testified at a hearing before ALJ Robert Gonzalez. R. 38-72. On November 22, 2010, ALJ Gonzalez issued a written decision in which he concluded that plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant period within the meaning of the SSA. R. 28-37. After the Appeals Council denied his request for review (R 1-4), plaintiff filed suit in this Court (12 Civ. 5379 (RJS)). R. 1056-58. On December 11, 2012, by stipulation of the parlies, the Court remanded the case for additional proceedings. R. 942-44. In turn, the Appeals Council remanded the case to ALJ Gonzalez on January 15, 2013. R. 1060-65.

On September 10, 2013, plaintiff appeared (with counsel) and testified at a supplemental hearing before ALJ Gonzalez. R 945-75. By decision dated May 15, 2014, the ALJ again denied plaintiffs claim for disability benefits. On or about May 28 2014, plaintiff filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision. R. 1012-28. By letter dated October 23, 2015, the Appeals Counsel notified plaintiff that it had considered his exceptions and found no reason to assume jurisdiction. R. 910-14. On or about December 27, 2015, plaintiff commenced a second suit in this Court (15 Civ. 10049 (RA)). T. 1661-64. On December 16, 2016, by stipulation of the parties, the Court remanded the case for additional proceedings. R. 1672-74. By Order dated March 10, 2017, the Appeals Council remanded the case to a different ALJ with instructions to, inter alia, (1) further develop the record by requesting evidence from Dr. Kanter and (2) give further consideration to the treating source opinions of Dr. Kanter and Dr. Lyden and explain the weight given to those opinions. R, 1675-79.

On January 18, 2018, plaintiff appeared (with counsel) and testified at a hearing before ALJ Vincent Cascio. R. 1604-26. On November 19, 2018, ALJ Cascio issued a written decision in which he concluded that plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant period within the meaning of the SS A. R. 1570-84. Plaintiff did not file written exceptions; instead, after the ALJ's decision became the final order of the Commissioner, plaintiff commenced the instant action.

B. Consultative Examination

On November 25, 2009, Dr. Suraj Malhotra conducted a consultative orthopedic examination of plaintiff. R. 318-21. Plaintiff complained of persistent pain in his right knee for the past eleven years. R. 318, He described the pain as a dull ache, 5/10 in intensity, with occasional swelling and worsened with moving and prolonged walking. Id. Plaintiff reported intermittent pain in the left knee since a slip and fall injury at work in 2003. Id. He described the pain as a dull ache (sharp at times), 5/10 in intensity, with occasional swelling and worsened with walking and climbing stairs. Id. He also reported intermittent, dull, aching pain in his right hip for the past year (intensity 4/10) for which he had not sought treatment. R. 319.

Plaintiff stated that he consults an orthopedic physician for the knee problem but had not seen him in a year and a half. R. 318. Plaintiff reported right knee torn meniscus surgery in 1998 (which did not improve the pain) and left knee torn meniscus surgery in 2004 (after which he "did not improve much"). Id. He also reported MRIs in 2004 (right knee) and 2007 (left knee). Id. Plaintiff stated that the 2007 MRJ showed another meniscus tear for which surgery was advised, but he did not consent. Id. He reported that his wife does the cooking, cleaning, laundry and shopping; he showers, bathes, dresses himself, watches television, listens to the radio, reads and goes out to doctor appointments, to dinner and to socialize with friends. R. 319.

Upon examination, Dr. Malhotra observed that plaintiff appeared to be in no acute distress. R. 320. His gait was normal, his squat was three-quarters of the distance (limited by right knee pain) and he could walk on heels and toes without difficulty. Id. He used no assistive device. Id. Plaintiff needed no help changing for the exam or getting on and off the exam table, and was able to rise from a chair without difficulty. Id

Plaintiffs hand and finger dexterity were intact; his grip strength was 5/5 bilaterally. Id. His cervical spine showed full flexion, extension, bilateral flexion and bilateral rotation, with no pain, spasm or trigger points. Id. Plaintiffs thoracic and lumbar spine showed full flexion, extension, bilateral flexion and bilateral rotation, with no spinal/paraspinal tenderness, spasm, trigger points or SI joint/sciatic notch tenderness. Id, Straight-leg raising test was negative bilaterally. Id, Plaintiff had full strength and ROM in his upper extremities and in his lower extremities (with minimal pain on extreme flexion of his right knee), no abnormalities in sensation or reflexes, no muscle atrophy and no joint effusion, inflammation or instability. Id. An X-ray of plaintiffs right knee showed lateral joint space narrowing. R. 321.

Dr. Malhotra diagnosed hypertension by history, right hip pain, "status post repair of right knee torn meniscus, remote with pain" and "status post repair of left knee torn meniscus, remote with pain." Id. He opined that plaintiff had "[m]inimal limitation on squatting" and that his prognosis was "good." Id.

C. The Opinions at Issue

1. Dr. John Lyden

In January 2004, plaintiff sought treatment for his left knee pain from orthopedic surgeon Dr. John Lyden from the Hospital for Special Surgery. R. 761, 867, 872. In February 2004, Dr. Lyden surgically repaired meniscal tears in plaintiffs left knee, R. 768-71, 802-04, 828-31, 868-71, 1198-1203.^[3] An MRI of plaintiff s right knee revealed degeneration of the posterior horn remnant, advanced cartilage wear in the lateral compartment and full thickness cartilage loss over both the lateral femoral condyle and lateral tibial plateau. R. 777-79.

In July 2005, a follow-up MRI of plaintiff s left knee revealed evidence of the prior lateral meniscectomy, moderately severe lateral arthrosis, a tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus associated with parameniscal cysts and focal condral defect. R. 881-82. Another left knee MRI in August 2007 indicated a possible re-tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus, degenerative osteoarthropathy involving all three compartments of the knee, mild lateral patellar subluxation and small joint effusion. R. 305-06, 1221-22.

In a letter dated April 22, 2008, Dr. Lyden advised that, despite a prior successful surgery, plaintiff continued to experience pain, weakness and instability in his left knee, and difficulty with extended walking, running, squatting and entering/exiting a vehId.e. R. 867. Dr. Lyden opined: "Because of the severity of damage to his left knee, Mr. Seymour is not capable of performing the full rigors of police work and should therefore be considered as disabled." Id.^[4]

On June 26, 2012, plaintiff returned to Dr. Lyden and complained of "progressive knee deformity and pain." R. 1394, 1566. X-rays of plaintiff s knees revealed "bilateral valgus deformity^[5] and lateral [degenerative joint disease]." Id. Dr. Lyden diagnosed valgus degenerative joint disease of both knees and discussed bilateral total knee replacement surgery. Id. On July 26, 2012, Dr. Lyden administered Synvisc injections to both of plaintiff s knees. R. 1393,1565.

Plaintiff returned to Dr. Lyden on January 3, 2013. Id. Upon examination, Dr. Lyden noted full range of motion, minimal puffiness, 15 °of...