The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Skretny Chief Judge United States District Court
1. Plaintiff, Michael S. Kitt, challenges an Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") determination that he is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act ("the Act"). Kitt alleges that he has been disabled due to low-back, cervical spine, and carpal tunnel problems since May of 2007. Kitt contends that his impairments render him unable to work. He therefore asserts that he is entitled to disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income (collectively "benefits") under the Act.
2. Kitt filed an application for benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Act on August 27, 2007, alleging disability from a work-related accident since May 9, 2007.*fn1 The
Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") denied Kitt's initial application, and as result he requested an administrative hearing. He received that hearing on November 20, 2008 before ALJ Marilyn D. Zahm; Kitt appeared with counsel and testified. The ALJ considered the case de novo, and on December 4, 2008, she issued a decision denying Kitt's application for benefits. Kitt filed a request for review with the Appeals Council, but the Council denied that request on August 27, 2010. Kitt then filed the current civil action on October 22, 2010, challenging Defendant's final decision.*fn2
3. On May 17, 2011, the Commissioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Kitt followed suit by filing his own motion for judgment on the pleadings three months later on August 4, 2011. Briefing on the motions concluded September 9, 2011, at which time this Court took the motions under advisement without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner's motion is granted and Kitt's motion is denied.
4. A court reviewing a denial of disability benefits may not determine de novo whether an individual is disabled. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); Wagner v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 906 F.2d 856, 860 (2d Cir. 1990). Rather, the Commissioner's determination will be reversed only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or there has been a legal error. See Grey v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 1983); Marcus v. Califano, 615 F.2d 23, 27 (2d Cir. 1979). Substantial evidence is that which amounts to "more than a mere scintilla"; it has been defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971). Where evidence is deemed susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner's conclusion must be upheld. See Rutherford v. Schweiker, 685 F.2d 60, 62 (2d Cir. 1982).
5. "To determine on appeal whether the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence, a reviewing court considers the whole record, examining the evidence from both sides, because an analysis of the substantiality of the evidence must also include that which detracts from its weight." Williams on Behalf of Williams v. Bowen, 859 F.2d 255, 258 (2d Cir. 1988). If supported by substantial evidence, the Commissioner's finding must be sustained "even where substantial evidence may support the plaintiff's position and despite that the court's independent analysis of the evidence may differ from the [Commissioner's]." Rosado v. Sullivan, 805 F. Supp. 147, 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). In other words, this Court must afford the Commissioner's determination considerable deference, and may not substitute "its own judgment for that of the [Commissioner], even if it might justifiably have reached a different result upon a de novo review." Valente v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 733 F.2d 1037, 1041 (2d Cir. 1984).
6. The Commissioner has established a five-step sequential evaluation process to determine whether an individual is disabled as defined under the Social Security Act. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. The United States Supreme Court recognized the validity of this analysis in Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142, 107 S. Ct. 2287, 2291, 96 L. Ed. 2d 119 (1987), and it remains the proper approach for analyzing whether a claimant is disabled.
7. This five-step process is detailed below: First, the [Commissioner] considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If he is not, the [Commissioner] next considers whether the claimant has a "severe impairment" which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations. If the claimant has such an impairment, the [Commissioner] will consider him disabled without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience; the [Commissioner] presumes that a claimant who is afflicted with a "listed" impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity. Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth inquiry is whether, despite the claimant's severe impairment, he has the residual functional capacity to perform his past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the [Commissioner] then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform.
Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (2d Cir. 1982) (per curiam); see also Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
8. Although the claimant has the burden of proof as to the first four steps, the Commissioner has the burden of proof on the fifth and final step. See Bowen, 482 U.S. at 146 n. 5; Ferraris v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 582, 584 (2d Cir. 1984). The final step of this inquiry is, in turn, divided into two parts. First, the Commissioner must assess the claimant's job qualifications by considering his physical ability, age, education, and work experience. Second, the Commissioner must determine whether jobs exist in the national economy that a person having the claimant's qualifications could perform. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f); Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458, 460, 103 S. Ct. 1952, 1954, 76 L. Ed. 2d 66 (1983).
9. In this case, the ALJ made the following findings with regard to
the five-step process set forth above: (1) Kitt has not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since May 9, 2007 (R. 15);*fn3
(2) Kitt has three severe impairments: "cervical spine
disorder, mild left carpal tunnel syndrome, and low back pain" (id.);
(3) Kitt does not have an impairment or combination of impairments
that meets or medically equals the criteria necessary for finding a
disabling impairment under the regulations (R. 16); (4) Kitt retained
the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform the full range of
sedentary work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(a) (id.) and; (5)
considering Kitt's age, education, work experience, and RFC, there are
jobs in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff
could perform (R. 23). Ultimately, the ALJ concluded that Kitt was not
under a disability as defined by the Act from May 9, 2007 through
December 4, 2008, the date of the ALJ's decision. (R. 24.)
10. Kitt raises three challenges to the ALJ's decision. First, Kitt argues that the ALJ erred when she did not properly evaluate the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Michael Landi, M.D. Second, he asserts that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate his RFC. Third, Kitt argues that the ALJ improperly discredited his hearing testimony.
11. As described by Kitt, "at each and every visit from the alleged onset to the time of the hearing and after[, Dr. Landi] opined that the claimant was totally disabled." (Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion ("Memo"), p. 14; Docket No. 11.) Kitt argues that these findings were improperly disregarded in favor of ...