Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kain v. Colvin

United States District Court, W.D. New York

May 14, 2017

PATRICIA CHRISTINE KAIN, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM M. SKRETNY United States District Judge.

         1. Plaintiff Patricia Christine Kain challenges an Administrative Law Judge's (“ALJ”) determination that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act (“the Act”). Plaintiff alleges that she has been disabled since June 3, 2010 due to bulging discs in her neck, osteoarthritis in her knees, chronic migraines, and hemorrhaging of the right eye. Plaintiff contends that her impairments render her unable to work, and thus, entitle her to payment of Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the Act.

         2. Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income on June 9, 2010, which was denied on October 8, 2010. On October 14, 2010, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ. On September 8, 2011, ALJ Timothy M. McGuan conducted a hearing at which Plaintiff appeared and testified. Plaintiff was represented by counsel. At the time of the hearing, Plaintiff was 32 years old, with an eighth grade education, and limited work experience. The ALJ considered the case de novo, and on October 12, 2011, issued a decision denying Plaintiff's application for benefits. The Appeals Council granted Plaintiff's request for review on March 9, 2012, and remanded the case for further proceedings. On July 24, 2012, ALJ McGuan conducted a supplemental hearing at which Plaintiff and a vocational expert appeared and testified. Plaintiff was represented by counsel. On November 9, 2012, the ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff's application for benefits. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review on June 9, 2014. Plaintiff filed the current action on August 11, 2014, challenging the Commissioner's final decision.[1]

         3. On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket No. 6). On February 26, 2015, the Commissioner filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Docket No. 10). Plaintiff filed a reply on March 17, 2015 (Docket No. 11), at which time this Court took the matter under advisement without oral argument. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is granted and Defendant'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, ” and 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 an 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 will 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 under the 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, and it remains the proper approach for analyzing whether a claimant is disabled. 482 U.S. 137, 140-42, 107 S.Ct. 2287, 2291, 96 L.Ed.2d 119 (1987).

         7. The 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) (quotations in original); 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 on 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 is 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) Plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since June 9, 2010, six days after the alleged onset date of June 3, 2010 (R. at 25);[2] (2) Plaintiff's extensive facet arthropathy at ¶ 4-S1, minimal disc bulges at ¶ 4-6 with no stenosis, disc herniation at ¶ 4-5 with no significant stenosis, mild joint effusion and mild tendonitis of the right knee with no evidence of tear, and depressive disorder were “severe” impairments within the meaning of the Act (R. at 25); (3) Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or medically equal any of the impairments listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (R. at 27); (4) Plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity to perform light work (which requires lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time, with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds, a good deal of walking or standing, or sitting most of the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls, 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(b)), except that she requires the option to sit or stand after one hour (R. at 29); and (5) Plaintiff can perform jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy (R. at 38). Thus, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not under a disability, as defined by the Act, at any time from June 9, 2010, through the date of the decision. (R. at 39).

         10. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ made two errors in his decision. First, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ's physical RFC evaluation was not supported by substantial evidence because the record does not contain a medical opinion addressing Plaintiff's exertional limitations, and the ALJ was not qualified to assess Plaintiff's exertional capacity himself. She contends that the medical evidence in the record constituted bare medical findings and required review from a medical expert, therefore, the ALJ had a duty to develop the record and obtain a medical opinion that addressed Plaintiff's exertional limitations.

         The RFC determination is an assessment of the claimant's ability to do physical and mental work activities on a sustained basis, despite the presence of limiting impairments, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), 416.945(a)(1), and is at the sole discretion of the ALJ after weighing all relevant objective and subjective evidence in the record, including the claimant's medical records, acceptable medical source opinions, “other source” opinions, and the claimant's testimony regarding her alleged limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (noting that a claimant's RFC must be consistent with the entire medical record). “Yet, an ALJ's examination of the medical record is not plenary: ‘An ALJ is not qualified to assess a claimant's RFC on the basis of bare medical findings, and as a result an ALJ's determination of RFC without a medical advisor's assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.'” Englert v. Colvin, 15-CV-564-FPG, 2016 WL 3745854, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. July 8, 2016) (quoting Dailey v. Astrue, No. 09-CV-0099(A)(M), 2010 WL 4703599, at *11 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010)). When the record contains medical findings merely ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.