Sinclair v. Saul

ANDREA H. SINCLAIR, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY¹ Defendant.

3:18-CV-00656 (RMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JULY 22, 2019

RULING ON THE PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ON THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

This action, filed under § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeks review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security ["SSA" or "the Commissioner"] denying the plaintiff's application for Social Security Disability Insurance ["SSDI"] benefits.²

I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

On or about February 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed an application for SSDI benefits claiming that she has been disabled since January 1, 2011, due to the following conditions: seizures; opiate and benzodiazepine addiction; "spinal fusion/scoliosis/spondylolisthesis"; chronic migraineheadaches; "Lyme [d]isease & co-infections"; Behcet's syndrome; chronic pain, chronic depression; irritable bowel syndrome ["IBS"]; and gastroparesis. (Doc. No. 10 (Certified Transcript of Administrative Proceedings, dated June 6, 2018 ["Tr."]) 103, 123, 150). The Commissioner denied the plaintiff's application initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. 103-22, 123-47). On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ["ALJ"]. (Tr. 166-67). On October 4, 2016, a hearing was held before ALJ Mary Beth O'Connor, at which the plaintiff and a vocational expert, Robin L. Generaux, testified. (Tr. 40-102; see Tr. 227, 251, 257). On November 2, 2016, the plaintiff amended her alleged onset date to March 8, 2011, and requested a closed period of disability, which began on the amended alleged onset date and ended on June 13, 2014.³ (Tr. 280). On January 9, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision denying the plaintiff's claim for benefits. (Tr. 10-34). On August 4, 2016, the plaintiff requested review of the hearing decision (Tr. 258-61; see also Tr. 35-39), and on February 20, 2018, the Appeals Council denied the plaintiff's request for review, thereby rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-6).

The plaintiff filed her complaint in this pending action on April 18, 2018. (Doc. No. 1). On July 11, 2018, the defendant filed her Answer and Certified Administrative Transcript, dated June 6, 2018. (Doc. No. 10). On August 2, 2018, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. Nos. 15 & 16), and the case was reassigned to this Magistrate Judge on August 3, 2018. (Doc. No. 17). On September 10, 2018, the plaintiff filed her Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 19), with brief in support (Doc. No. 19-1). The parties filedtheir Joint Statement of Material Facts on December 21, 2018 (Doc. No. 30); and on that same day, the plaintiff filed an amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 32), with brief in support (Doc. No. 32-1 ["Pl.'s Mem."]). On January 28, 2019, the defendant filed her Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner (Doc. No. 34), with brief in support (Doc. No. 34-1 ["Def.'s Mem."]). On February 11, 2019, the plaintiff filed her reply brief. (Doc. No. 35).

For the reasons stated below, the plaintiff's Amended Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 32) is denied, and the defendant's Motion to Affirm (Doc. No. 34) is granted.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND⁴

The Court presumes the parties' familiarity with the plaintiff's medical history, which is thoroughly discussed in the Joint Stipulation of Facts (Doc. No. 30). The Court cites only the portions of the record that are necessary to explain this decision.

III. THE ALJ'S DECISION

Following the five-step evaluation process,⁵ the ALJ found that the plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since her amended alleged onset date of March 8, 2011.(Tr. 15, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1571 et seq., and 416.971, et seq). The ALJ concluded that the plaintiff had the following severe impairments: epilepsy; substance addiction; degenerative disc disease; depression; anxiety; migraines; gastroparesis; and IBS.⁶ (Tr. 15, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c) and 416.920(c)). At step three, the ALJ found that the plaintiff did not have an impairment or a combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. (Tr. 16, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525, 404.1526, 416.920(d), 416.925, and 416.926). The ALJ determined that the plaintiff had the residual functional capacity ["RFC"] to perform light work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b), except that she could occasionally climb ramps and stairs, balance, and crawl; she could never climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; she could frequently stoop, kneel, and crouch; she had to avoid concentrated exposure to noise and even moderate exposure to unprotected heights and moving mechanical parts; and she was limited to simple, repetitive, routine tasks. (Tr. 18). At step four, the ALJ stated that the plaintiff was unable to perform any past relevant work. (Tr. 24, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1565 and 416.965). At step five, after considering the plaintiff's age, education, work experience, and RFC, the ALJ concluded that there were significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the plaintiff could perform. (Tr. 24, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1569, 404.1569(a), 416.969, and 416.969(a)). Accordingly, the ALJ found that the plaintiff was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, at any time from the amended alleged onset date of March 8, 2011, through the date of her decision.⁷ (Tr. 25, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(g) and 416.920(g)).

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The scope of review of a Social Security disability determination involves two levels of inquiry. First, the court must decide whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal principles in making the determination. See Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Second, the court must decide whether substantial evidence supports the determination. See id. The court may "set aside the Commissioner's determination that a claimant is not disabled only if the factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence or if the decision is based on legal error." Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 127 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotations marks omitted); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion; it is more than a "mere scintilla." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (citation omitted); see Yancey v. Apfel, 145 F.3d 106, 111 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). The substantial evidence rule also applies to inferences and conclusions that are drawn from findings of fact. See Gonzalez v. Apfel, 23 F. Supp. 2d 179, 189 (D. Conn. 1998) (citation omitted); Rodriguez v. Califano, 431 F. Supp. 421, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (citations omitted). However, the court may not decide facts, reweigh evidence, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Dotson v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 571, 577 (7th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Instead, the court must scrutinize the entire record to determine the reasonableness of the ALJ's factual findings. See id. Furthermore, the Commissioner's findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence and should be upheld even in those cases where the reviewing court might have found otherwise. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see also Beauvoir v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1432, 1433 (2d Cir. 1997) (citation omitted); Eastman v. Barnhart, 241 F. Supp. 2d 160, 168 (D. Conn. 2003).

V. DISCUSSION

In this appeal, the plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred in three general regards. First, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ applied improperly the treating physician rule and misconstrued the objective evidence in the record. (Pl.'s Mem. at 18-26). Second, the plaintiff maintains that the ALJ failed to consider adequately the plaintiff's subjective complaints about her condition. (Pl.'s Mem. at 26-31). Finally, the plaintiff claims that the ALJ erred at step five of the sequential analysis by failing to account for certain non-exertional limitations. (Pl.'s Mem. at 31). The defendant responds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision that the plaintiff was not disabled at any time during the closed period of disability. (Def.'s Mem. at 6).

A. THE ALJ'S EVALUATION OF THE OBJECTIVE MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF THE TREATING PHYSICIAN RULE

The plaintiff claims that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's conclusions regarding the medical opinion evidence or, alternatively, that such conclusions run contrary to law. (Pl.'s Mem. at 18). The plaintiff relies on several arguments to support this claim. First, the plaintiff contends that the ALJ determined erroneously the length of the plaintiff's treatment with one of her mental health treatment providers and that such error was not harmless. (Pl.'s Mem. at 18-20). Second, the plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to address adequately the objective findings and medical opinion of Gaurav Kapur, M.D., regarding the impairments to the plaintiff's lumbar spine. (Pl.'s Mem. at 20-22). Third, the plaintiff maintains that the ALJ failed to address adequately an unsigned, undated medical opinion statement, which she claims was produced by Zeb Ali, M.D. (Pl.'s Mem. at 22-23). Fourth, the plaintiff claims that the ALJ weighed too greatly the opinions of the State agency medical sources. (Pl.'s Mem. at 23-24). Fifth, the plaintiff alleges that the ALJ erred by concluding that an opinion of the plaintiff's mental health providers lacked "expertise and knowledge" to the extent that the opinion discussed the plaintiff's physical impairments. (Pl.'s Mem. at 24-25). Finally, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ afforded too muchweight to the...