Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Gonzalez v. Berryhill

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

August 17, 2018




         Plaintiff Maria Gonzalez ("plaintiff"), brings this appeal under §205(g) of the Social Security Act (the "Act"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §405(g), seeking review of a final decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner" or "defendant") denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under the Act. Plaintiff has moved for an order reversing the decision of the Commissioner, or in the alternative to remand for a new hearing. [Doc. #24]. Defendant has filed a cross-motion seeking an order affirming the decision of the Commissioner. [Doc. #26].

         For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of the Commissioner or in the Alterative Motion for Remand for a Hearing [Doc. #24] is DENIED, and defendant's Motion for an Order Affirming the Decision of the Commissioner [Doc. #26] is GRANTED.


         Plaintiff filed concurrent applications for DIB and SSI on October 18, 2012, alleging disability beginning July 1, 2012. See Certified Transcript of the Administrative Record, Doc. #17, compiled on January 10, 2018, (hereinafter "Tr.") at 212-27. Plaintiff's applications were denied initially on June 19, 2013, see Tr. 138-45, and upon reconsideration on October 18, 2013. See Tr. 150-56.

         On November 20, 2014, plaintiff, represented by Attorneys Kirk Lowry and Matthew Bardos, appeared and testified at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") I.K. Harrington. See Tr. 35-77. Vocational Expert ("VE") Richard Barry Hall testified by telephone at the hearing. See Tr. 60-61, 72-76, 171-75. On December 24, 2014, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. See Tr. 12-34. On June 20, 2017, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review, thereby making the ALJ's December 24, 2014, decision the final decision of the Commissioner. See Tr. 1-6. The case is now ripe for review under 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

         Plaintiff, now represented by Attorney Olia Yelner, timely filed this action for review and moves to reverse the Commissioner's decision, or in the alternative, to remand for a new hearing. [Doc. #24]. On appeal, plaintiff argues:

1. The ALJ failed to properly assess plaintiff's credibility;
2. The ALJ failed to properly weigh the medical opinion evidence; and
3. The ALJ's Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC") determination fails to include all of plaintiff's impairments.

See generally Doc. #24-2 at 22-43. As set forth below, the Court finds that ALJ Harrington did not err as contended, and that her decision is supported by substantial evidence of record.


         The 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. Second, the Court must decide whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence. See Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). 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) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). The reviewing court's responsibility is to ensure that a claim has been fairly evaluated by the ALJ. See Grey v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).

         The Court does not reach the second stage of review -evaluating whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's conclusion - if the Court determines that the ALJ failed to apply the law correctly. See Norman v. Astrue, 912 F.Supp.2d 33, 70 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("The Court first reviews the Commissioner's decision for compliance with the correct legal standards; only then does it determine whether the Commissioner's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence." (citing Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770, 773-74 (2d Cir. 1999))). "Where there is a reasonable basis for doubt whether the ALJ applied correct legal principles, application of the substantial evidence standard to uphold a finding of no disability creates an unacceptable risk that a claimant will be deprived of the right to have her disability determination made according to the correct legal principles." Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 986 (2d Cir. 1987).

         "[T]he crucial factors in any determination must be set forth with sufficient specificity to enable [a reviewing court] to decide whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence." Ferraris v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 582, 587 (2d Cir. 1984) (alterations added) (citing Treadwell v. Schweiker, 698 F.2d 137, 142 (2d Cir. 1983)). The ALJ is free to accept or reject the testimony of any witness, but a "finding that the witness is not credible must nevertheless be set forth with sufficient specificity to permit intelligible plenary review of the record." Williams ex rel. Williams v. Bowen, 859 F.2d 255, 260-61 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing Carroll v. Sec. Health and Human Servs., 705 F.2d 638, 643 (2d Cir. 1983)). "Moreover, when a finding is potentially dispositive on the issue of disability, there must be enough discussion to enable a reviewing court to determine whether substantial evidence exists to support that finding." Johnston v. Colvin, No. 3:13CV00073(JCH), 2014 WL 1304715, at *6 (D. Conn. Mar. 31, 2014) (citing Peoples v. Shalala, No. 92CV4113, 1994 WL 621922, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 1994)) .

         It is important to note that in reviewing the ALJ's decision, this Court's role is not to start from scratch. "In reviewing a final decision of the SSA, this Court is limited to determining whether the SSA's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence in the record and were based on a correct legal standard." Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Lamay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec, 562 F.3d 503, 507 (2d Cir. 2009)). "[W]hether there is substantial evidence supporting the appellant's view is not the question here; rather, we must decide whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision." Bonet ex rel. T.B. v. Colvin, 523 Fed.Appx. 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).


         Under the Social Security Act, every individual who is under a disability is entitled to disability insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. §423(a) (1) .

         To be considered disabled under the Act and therefore entitled to benefits, plaintiff must demonstrate that she is unable to work after a date specified "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). Such impairment or impairments must be "of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(2)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(c), 416.920(c) (requiring that the impairment "significantly limit[] ... physical or mental ability to do basic work activities" to be considered "severe" (alterations added)).[2]

         There is a familiar five-step analysis used to determine if a person is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520, 416.920. In the Second Circuit, the test is described as follows:

First, the Secretary considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If he is not, the Secretary 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 Secretary will consider him disabled without considering vocational factors such as age, education, and work experience; the Secretary presumes that a claimant who is afflicted with a "listed" impairment is unable to perform substantial gainful activity.

Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (2d Cir. 1982) (per curiam). If and only if the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the Commissioner engages in the fourth and fifth steps:

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 Secretary then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform. Under the cases previously discussed, the claimant bears the burden of proof as to the first four steps, while the Secretary must prove the final one.


         "Through the fourth step, the claimant carries the burdens of production and persuasion, but if the analysis proceeds to the fifth step, there is a limited shift in the burden of proof and the Commissioner is obligated to demonstrate that jobs exist in the national or local economies that the claimant can perform given [her] residual functional capacity." Gonzalez ex rel. Guzman v. Dep't of Health and Human Serv., 360 Fed.Appx. 240, 243 (2d Cir. 2010) (alteration added) (citing 68 Fed. Reg. 51155 (Aug. 26, 2003)); Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 306 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam)). The RFC is what a person is still capable of doing despite limitations resulting from her physical and mental impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545(a) (1), 416.945(a)(1).

         "In assessing disability, factors to be considered are (1) the objective medical facts; (2) diagnoses or medical opinions based on such facts; (3) subjective evidence of pain or disability testified to by the claimant or others; and (4) the claimant's educational background, age, and work experience." Bastien v. Califano, 572 F.2d 908, 912 (2d Cir. 1978). "[E]ligibility for benefits is to be determined in light of the fact that 'the Social Security Act is a remedial statute to be broadly construed and liberally applied.'" Id. (quoting Haberman v. Finch, 418 F.2d 664, 667 (2d Cir. 1969)).


         Following the above-described five-step evaluation process, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff was not disabled under the Act. See Tr. 29. At step one, the ALJ found that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date of July 1, 2012. See Tr. 17. At step two, the ALJ found that plaintiff had the severe impairments of major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) . See Tr. 17-18. The ALJ found plaintiff also suffered from the following non-severe impairments: hypertension; backache; migraines; cervicalgia; shingles; gout; and obesity. See Tr. 18-19. The ALJ next determined that "mental retardation and borderline intellectual functioning are non-medically determinable impairments." Tr. 19.

         At step three, the ALJ found that plaintiff's impairments, either alone or in combination, did not meet or medically equal the severity of any of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1. See Tr. 19-22. The ALJ specifically considered Listings 12.04 (affective disorders) and 12.06 (anxiety related disorder). See Tr. 20-22. Before moving on to step four, the ALJ found plaintiff had the RFC

to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: The claimant is capable of performing simple, routine tasks, involving no more than simple, short instructions and simple work-related decisions, with few work places changes. The claimant should avoid working at fixed production rate pace. She should also avoid interaction with the general public, but could have occasional interaction with co-workers and supervisors[.]

Tr. 22 (sic). At step four, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff was unable to perform her past relevant work "as an adult home care, child care, catering, floor associate and stocker[.]" Tr. 27 (sic). At step five, and after considering plaintiff's age, education, work experience and RFC, as well as the testimony of the VE, the ALJ found that other jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform. See Tr. 28-29.

         V. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff raises three general arguments in support of reversal or remand. The Court will address each in turn.

         A. The ALJ's Assessment of Plaintiff's Credibility

         Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred in her assessment of plaintiff's credibility. See Doc. #24-2 at 22-25. Plaintiff specifically takes issue with the ALJ's reliance on her lack of mental health treatment and medication compliance. See Id. Defendant responds that the ALJ properly assessed plaintiff's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of plaintiff's symptoms. See Doc. #26-1 at 14-16.

         After summarizing plaintiff's testimony, and a "careful consideration of the evidence," the ALJ found that plaintiff's "medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms[, ]" but that plaintiff's "statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely credible for reasons explained in this decision." Tr. 23. In making that determination the ALJ considered: "the objective clinical evidence and treatment notes"; the type of medical treatment plaintiff received; plaintiff's non-compliance with her treatment and medication regimens; plaintiff's failure to follow-up on her doctors' recommendations; ...

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.