United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER
Donna
F. Martinez United States Magistrate Judge
The
plaintiff, Andrew Lamar Leary, seeks judicial review pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of a final decision by the
Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner")
denying his application for supplemental security income.
Pending before the court are the plaintiff's motion to
reverse the Commissioner's decision (doc. #21) and the
Commissioner's motion to affirm the decision. (Doc. #26.)
For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiff's motion
is denied and the defendant's motion is
granted.[1]
I.
Administrative Proceedings
On
October 17, 2013, the plaintiff applied for supplemental
security income alleging that he was unable to work due to
depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, and back and neck
injuries. (R. at 80.) The Social Security Administration
denied the plaintiff's application initially and on
reconsideration. The plaintiff requested a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge. A hearing was held on December 29,
2015, at which the plaintiff, represented by counsel, and a
vocational expert testified. On February 3, 2016, the ALJ
issued a decision finding that the plaintiff was not disabled
under the Social Security Act. On April 27, 2017, the Appeals
Council denied the plaintiff's request for review. This
action followed.
II.
Facts and Legal Standard
The
court assumes the parties' familiarity with the
plaintiff's medical history (summarized in a stipulation
of facts filed by the parties, doc. #21-2, which are adopted
and incorporated herein by reference), and the five
sequential steps used in the analysis of disability claims.
The court cites only those portions of the records and the
legal standard necessary to explain this ruling.
III.
The ALJ's Decision
The ALJ
first determined that the plaintiff had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since October 17, 2013, the
alleged onset date. At step two, the ALJ found that the
plaintiff had severe impairments of "organic brain
syndrome, substance abuse disorder (drugs and alcohol),
anxiety disorder, and affective disorder." (R. at 17.)
At step three, the ALJ found that the 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 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix
1[.]" (R. at 18.) Specifically, the ALJ found that the
plaintiff's impairments, considered singly and in
combination, did not meet or medically equal the criteria of
listings 12.04 (affective disorders), 12.05 (intellectual
disability), 12.06 (anxiety disorders) and 12.09 (substance
addiction disorders.) The ALJ next found that the plaintiff
had the residual functional capacity to perform medium work
as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(c) but with the
limitations that he could "only frequently stoop,
crouch, and crawl"; could "perform only simple,
routine, and repetitive tasks but not any production
pace"; and could "deal with changes in a work
setting limited to simple work-related decisions." (R.
at 21.) At step 4, the ALJ found that the plaintiff had no
past relevant work. At step 5, after considering
plaintiff's age, education, work experience, residual
functional capacity, and the testimony of a vocational
expert, the ALJ found that there existed jobs in significant
numbers in the national economy that the plaintiff could
perform. (R. at 30.) Accordingly, the ALJ determined that the
plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act from
October 17, 2013, through the date of the decision, February
2016. (R. at 30.)
IV.
Standard of Review
This
court's review of the ALJ's decision is limited.
"It is not [the court's] function to determine de
novo whether [the plaintiff] is disabled." Pratts v.
Chater, 94 F.3d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1996). The court may
reverse an ALJ's finding that a plaintiff is not disabled
only if the ALJ applied incorrect legal standards or if the
decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Brault
v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 683 F.3d 443, 447 (2d Cir. 2012).
In determining whether the ALJ's findings are supported
by substantial evidence, "'the reviewing court is
required to examine the entire record, including
contradictory evidence and evidence from which conflicting
inferences can be drawn.'" Talavera v.
Astrue, 697 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting
Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033, 1038 (2d Cir.
1983)). "Substantial evidence is more than a mere
scintilla. . . . It means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion." Brault, 683 F.3d at 447 (quotation marks
and citations omitted). It is "a very deferential
standard of review-even more so than the clearly erroneous
standard. . . . The substantial evidence standard means once
an ALJ finds facts, [the court] can reject those facts only
if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude
otherwise." Id. at 447-48. "Even where the
administrative record may also adequately support contrary
findings on particular issues, the ALJ's factual findings
must be given conclusive effect so long as they are supported
by substantial evidence." Genier v. Astrue, 606
F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks
omitted). See also Bonet ex rel. T.B. v. Colvin, 523
Fed.Appx. 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2013)("[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.")(citations omitted)(emphasis in original).
V.
Discussion
The
plaintiff argues that the ALJ's finding at step 3 that
the plaintiff does not meet Listing 12.05C, which sets forth
the conditions under which a person is intellectually
disabled, is not supported by substantial
evidence.[2]
The
plaintiff bears "the burden of proof at step three to
show that [his] impairments meet or medically equal a
Listing." Whitley v. Colvin, No.
3:17CV121(SALM), 2018 WL 1026849, at *8 (D. Conn. Feb. 23,
2018). "For a claimant to show that his impairment
matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical
criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those
criteria, no matter how ...