Susan G. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

DECISION AND ORDER

CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff's application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). Both parties have moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Pl.'s Mot., Jan. 25, 2021, ECF No. 14; Def.'s Mot., Mar. 26, 2021, ECF No. 15. Plaintiff maintains that the Commissioner's decision should be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings because (1) the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in his evaluation of Plaintiff's subjective complaints, and (2) the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination was based on unsupported lay opinion. Pl. Mem. of Law, Mar. 26, 2021, ECF No. 14-1. The Commissioner counterargues that the ALJ did not commit legal error, and that his decision is based on substantial evidence.

2

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF No. 14] is denied, the Commissioner's motion [ECF No. 15] is granted, and the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.

BACKGROUND

The Court assumes the reader's familiarity with the facts and procedural history in this case, and therefore addresses only those facts and issues which bear directly on the resolution of the motions presently before the Court.

Standard for Disability Determination

The law defines “disability” as the “inability 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 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). In order to qualify for DIB benefits, the DIB claimant must satisfy the requirements for special insured status. 42 U.S.C. § 423(c)(1). In addition, the Social Security Administration has outlined a “five-step, sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a DIB or SSI claimant is disabled:

(1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments; (3) whether the impairment meets or equals the severity of the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments; (4) based on a “residual functional capacity” assessment whether the claimant can perform any of his or her past relevant work despite the impairment; and (5) whether there are significant numbers of jobs in the national economy that the claimant can perform given the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience

McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146, 150 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 120 (2d Cir. 2008); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), § 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v)).

3

The claimant bears the burden of proof for the first four steps of the sequential evaluation. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); Melville v. Apfel, 198 F.3d 45, 51 (2d Cir. 1999). At step five, the burden shifts to the Commissioner only to demonstrate that there is other work in the national economy that the claimant can perform. Poupore v. Asture, 566 F.3d 303, 306 (2d Cir. 2009).

Procedural History

Plaintiff filed her DIB application on January 26, 2017, alleging a disability onset date of January 1, 2006. Transcript (“Tr.”), 158, Nov. 20, 2020, ECF No. 8. In her application, Plaintiff alleged that her ability to work was limited by several conditions, including: rheumatoid arthritis, extreme fatigue, depression/anxiety, migraines, nausea, lower back issues, shooting pain down left leg, hypertension, hiatal hernia, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (“GERD”). Tr. 173. On April 28, 2017, the Commissioner notified Plaintiff that her DIB claim was denied, and explained:

We have determined your condition was not disabling on any date through 06/30/11, when you were last insured for disability benefits. To get disability benefits, we must be able to obtain medical evidence which shows the severity of your condition. Although we contacted your medical sources we were unable to obtain all the evidence we needed. Your period of eligibility for Social Security Benefits has already passed. Therefore, we only considered information about your condition up to the time you were last insured for disability benefits

Tr. 80. Thereafter, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Tr. 86.

Plaintiff's request was approved, and the hearing was held via videoconference on March 26, 2019. Tr. 29. Plaintiff appeared with counsel, and an impartial vocational expert joined the hearing by phone. Tr. 31. At the outset of the hearing, the ALJ explained to Plaintiff the period of time that she was evaluating:

4

Now, in your particular case, you applied for Disability Insurance Benefits . . . . That's an insurance policy and when you worked you pay the premiums and get the coverage. When you stopped working, the coverage expires. And your coverage expired several years ago on June 30^th of 2011. Now, for us what that means is that I have to concern myself with not what your condition is today, but what your condition . . . was - while you were still insured.

Tr. 32. Plaintiff's counsel then summarized Plaintiff's situation for the ALJ:

[Plaintiff] is a 63-year old female. She was 50 years old at her alleged onset date and she was 56 years old at her date last insured. She has a significant past work history as a manager at a care facility. And her impairments include rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, osteopenia, fatigue, depression, anxiety, migraines, chronic back pain, left leg sciatica, [irritable bowel syndrome], sleep apnea, insomnia, and hypertension. In addition, right knee pain.

Tr. 34.

With respect to her education and work history, Plaintiff testified that she had a twelfth-grade education, and worked for Homemakers Upstate Group, a company that provides home health aides, for 27 years until she was let go in 2005. Tr. 36-39. She was “more or less the computer person . . . . install[ing] the computers and train[ing] individuals how to use our software, ” splitting her time between the corporate office in Buffalo and 14 satellite locations. Tr. 37. Plaintiff stated that she had taken significant time off because her “health had declined to the point where it was very hard to travel and manually do some of the work that [she] had to do . . . .” Tr. 39. She said that she had taken off for several weeks in November and December of 2005, and had planned to return after the first of the year, but was terminated in late December because she was unable to produce a doctor's note indicating that she would be able to perform all of her job duties. Tr. 53.

With respect to her activities of daily living, Plaintiff testified that she “became more and more depressed” after she lost her job in 2005, and her anxiety started to elevate. Tr. 39-40. She was living in a two-story house at the time, and although she had difficulty recalling, she could “probably” do laundry and house cleaning, but that her husband did most

5

of the shopping because she had become limited with fatigue and pain. Tr. 43. She would have to do the cooking in stages, because standing for a long period of time had become difficult. Tr. 52. Plaintiff had the most difficulty with her hands, elbows, knees and ankles, and she would have to use a cane on her bad days, which occurred approximately four times each year and lasted for between one week and “months.” Tr. 47-48. She was also fatigued, and had “debilitating” migraine headaches. Tr. 50. She would spend her days visiting her mother and watching television, and would on occasional mornings take walks or go to breakfast with her husband. Tr. 45-46.

On April 11, 2019, the ALJ denied Plaintiff's claim for DIB benefits. Tr. 24. In his decision, the ALJ found that Plaintiff only met the special insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through June 30, 2011, and that evidence from after that date was relevant only insofar as it relates to the period between the alleged onset date in December 2005 and the date last insured in June 2011. Tr. 17. At step one of the five-step evaluation process, the ALJ found that Plaintiff did not engage in substantial gainful activity between the alleged onset date and the date last insured. Tr. 17. At step two, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the severe impairments of rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. Tr. 17. The ALJ also assessed Plaintiff's alleged mental impairment of depressive disorder utilizing the “special technique” required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a.^[2] Tr. 13. In so doing, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff's

6

depression caused no more than mild limitations in any of the four psychological areas of functioning, and therefore found that Plaintiff's mental impairments are non-severe. Tr. 19.

At step three, the ALJ determined that 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 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. Tr. 19. Then, before proceeding to step four, the ALJ carefully considered the entire record and determined that for the period between her alleged onset date (December 2005) and her date last insured (June 2011) (the “relevant period”), Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity^[3] (“RFC”) to perform light work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b), except that she “could occasionally climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; she could frequently...