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.

Rivera v. Berryhill

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

December 12, 2018

ANGELITA RIVERA
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY[1]

          RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER AND ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

          ROBERT M. SPECTOR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This action, filed under § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeks review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security [“SSA” or “the Commissioner”] denying the plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income [“SSI”] and Social Security Disability Insurance [“SSDI”] benefits.

         I. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

         On or about March 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed applications for SSI and SSDI benefits, claiming that she has been disabled since February 1, 2009, due to depression, anxiety, extreme fatigue, hepatitis C, and human immunodeficiency virus [“HIV”]. (Certified Transcript of Administrative Proceedings, dated January 9, 2018 [“Tr.”] 283; see Tr. 103-104, 147, 151, and 160). The plaintiff's applications were denied initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr. 23, 90-102, 103-15, 118-31, 132-45). On January 7, 2015, the plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge [“ALJ”] (Tr. 23, 165; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.929, et seq. and 416.1929, et seq.), and on February 27, 2016, a hearing was held before ALJ Louis Bonsangue, at which the plaintiff and a vocational expert, Renee Jubrey, [2] testified. (Tr. 20-35; see Tr. 50-87). On June 2, 2016, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision denying the plaintiff's claim for benefits. (Tr. 20-35). On June 20, 2016, the plaintiff requested review of the hearing decision (Tr. 242- 43), and on August 10, 2017, the Appeals Council denied the plaintiff's request for review, thereby rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-3).

         On October 12, 2017, the plaintiff filed her complaint in this pending action (Doc. No. 1), and on February 20, 2018, the defendant filed her answer and certified administrative transcript, dated January 9, 2018. (Doc. No. 13). On February 27, 2018, this case was transferred to United States Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis, following the parties' consent to a Magistrate Judge. (Doc. No. 16). On April 19, 2018, the plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner, with brief in support (Doc. Nos. 17, 17-1 [“Pl.'s Mem.”]), along with a Joint Statement of Material Facts. (Doc. No. 17-2). On May 1, 2018, the case was transferred to this Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 18), and on June 18, 2018, the defendant filed her Motion to Affirm the Decision of the Commissioner, with brief in support. (Doc. Nos. 19, 19-1 [“Def.'s Mem.”]).

         For the reasons stated below, the plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED, and the defendant's Motion to Affirm (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED.

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         As of her alleged onset date of disability, February 1, 2009, the plaintiff was forty-four years old. (See Tr. 90). The plaintiff lives alone in an apartment and has lived alone for approximately seven years. (Tr. 62). The plaintiff has two adult children, a son and a daughter, as well as one grandson. (Tr. 62, 75). The plaintiff has a ninth grade education and does not have a driver's license; she took a driver's test, but failed. (Tr. 63). She does not “have patience” for public transportation because she “feel[s] awkward being around a lot of people.” (Tr. 63-64). The plaintiff's friend typically drives the plaintiff wherever she has to go. (See Tr. 63, 76).

         The plaintiff has a history of heavy drug use; however, she testified at the hearing that she has not used drugs since 1997. (Tr. 71-72). The plaintiff was incarcerated for a period of time during the 1980s at the York Correctional Institution in Niantic, Connecticut. (See Tr. 66, 67; see also Tr. 84). While she was incarcerated, the plaintiff took classes and obtained a certification in business. (Tr. 66). The plaintiff attempted to get her GED, but her “anger took the best side of [her], ” and she was unable to complete the program. (Tr. 66). She sees her therapist weekly for her anxiety and depression, which she testified developed after she was molested at age seven or eight. (Tr. 72). According to the plaintiff, her depression has gotten worse since she has been sober. (Tr. 72).

         A. ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING

         The plaintiff watches television every day, including one-hour shows, and is able to tell others about what occurred on the show that she just watched. (Tr. 76, 82). When watching an hour-long television show, however, the plaintiff gets up several times to “drink water” or “use the bathroom.” (Tr. 76). The plaintiff uses the bathroom frequently throughout the day, as her hepatitis C medication causes diarrhea. (Tr. 68-69, 292). The plaintiff also enjoys reading, but at times has trouble understanding big words. (Tr. 82). One of the plaintiff's hobbies is cleaning her apartment. (Tr. 82-83). The plaintiff cleans her apartment at least once a week and whenever she thinks it needs to be cleaned. (Tr. 83-84, 294). There are some days, though, when the plaintiff's aches and pains make it difficult to do chores. (Tr. 83-84, 294). When this happens, the plaintiff “suck[s] it up” and cleans. (Tr. 83-84). On days when the plaintiff is “no good, ” her friend will help her with household chores. (Tr. 79). The plaintiff manages her own finances (Tr. 293), showers, and brushes her teeth most days (Tr. 290); however, on occasion, she has a “bad day” and does not get out of bed or shower. (Tr. 79).

         Although the plaintiff does not like to cook, she cooks for herself multiple times per week and often prepares home-cooked meals such as soup, rice and beans, and pork shoulder. (Tr. 82; see Tr. 291). The plaintiff has trouble following recipes, however, because she “tend[s] to forget them.” (Tr. 82). There are also days when the plaintiff's friend will cook for her (see Tr. 79) and, on particularly bad days when she cannot get out of bed, her friend will feed her. (Tr. 80). Moreover, the plaintiff's friend does most of her grocery and clothes shopping because the plaintiff has trouble being around people. (Tr. 64). The plaintiff testified that there are times when she “just can't be around people” and that she feels as though others are “out to get her, ” so she does not have the “patience” to go to the store. (Tr. 64). When she does go to the store, which is about once per month, she “want[s] to hurry up and get it done, ” and expects the employees to “hurry up and take care of [her] so [she] can go.” (Tr. 65).

         The plaintiff often cares for her five year old grandson, whom she sees nearly every day. (Tr. 75). When the plaintiff is with her grandson, she plays with, and reads to, him. (Tr. 75). The plaintiff testified that her grandson is her “pride and joy” and the only person who makes her happy. (Tr. 77). There are many times when the plaintiff will keep her grandson at her apartment for an entire day and, when her grandson has a three-day weekend from school, she will keep him for the entire weekend. (Tr. 78). The plaintiff explained that it is hard for her to care for her grandson and that, when her pain flares up, she calls her daughter to get him. (Tr. 78). The plaintiff's friend also assists the plaintiff when her grandson spends the night at the plaintiff's apartment and when he needs to be picked up from school. (See Tr. 75, 78).

         The plaintiff experiences pain in her daily activities; the pain begins after she has been sitting or standing for approximately two to three hours. (Tr. 81). When the plaintiff stands for an extended period of time, her feet become swollen. (Tr. 297). The plaintiff can walk about two blocks before she needs to stop and rest (Tr. 295); she has to rest for about thirty minutes before she can continue walking again. (Tr. 295). Even when she experiences pain, the plaintiff “forces [her]self” to walk; however, there are days when the plaintiff is unable to make it up and down stairs. (Tr. 81). She can leave the house on her own, but does not go outside often because she does not “feel too good physically.” (Tr. 294). The plaintiff can pay attention until she “feel[s] bored, ” but does not always finish what she starts. (Tr. 295). She has trouble getting along with family members, friends, and neighbors because she does not like socializing (Tr. 296), and she struggles with authority figures because she feels as though they are “talking about [her].” (Tr. 295).

         The vocational expert testified that the plaintiff's past relevant work as a “package sealer, machine” and “houseworker, general” were medium exertional jobs with an SVP[3] of two and three respectively. (Tr. 56). The ALJ posed a hypothetical to the vocational expert about an individual who was limited to medium exertional work; simple, routine, repetitive tasks with no production-rate pace; little or no contact with co-workers and no requirement for collaborative efforts; no public contact; and few changes in the work routine from day-to-day. (Tr. 57). The vocational expert testified that this hypothetical person would be unable to perform the plaintiff's past relevant work, but that jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that this person would be able to perform. (Tr. 57-58). The ALJ then added the limitation that this hypothetical person would “occasionally not respond appropriately to any criticism from supervisors, ” and the vocational expert opined that “there would be no job for that [individual].” (Tr. 58-59).

         The ALJ then asked the vocational expert to opine whether jobs existed for a hypothetical individual with the same limitations; however, limited to light exertional work. (Tr. 59). The vocational expert testified that this individual would be able to perform the jobs of a “mail clerk, ” a “marker, ” and a “rooming clerk” (Tr. 59-60), and that these jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy. Again, however, when the ALJ added the limitation that the individual would “occasionally not respond appropriately to any criticism from supervisors, ” the vocational expert opined that there would be no jobs for the individual. (Tr. 60).

         B. MEDICAL RECORDS[4]

         1. DR. ZIFE KROSI

         The record reflects the plaintiff's extensive treatment history at Staywell Health Care, Inc. [“SHC”]. Dr. Zife Krosi evaluated the plaintiff initially on June 3, 2009, when the plaintiff complained of back pain and right knee pain. (Tr. 466-68). A physical examination of the plaintiff's musculoskeletal system revealed that she had “[f]ull range of motion of the knees[, ] [n]o crepitus, full ROM, ligaments intact, [and] no tendonitis.” (Tr. 468). Dr. Krosi recommended that the plaintiff treat her knee pain with “ice, rest, and Ibuprofen.” (Tr. 468). A psychological review revealed that the plaintiff was depressed because she had “no family around”; however, she denied the need for prescription antidepressants and declined a referral to a mental health provider. (Tr. 466).

         On December 17, 2009, the plaintiff complained of pain in her left hip. (Tr. 453). A physical examination of the plaintiff's hips showed “full range of motion” and “normal mobility, ” but tight muscles in her left hip. (Tr. 454). Also on this date, Dr. Krosi noted that the plaintiff was resuming interferon treatment for her hepatitis C.[5] (Tr. 453). On March 18, 2010, however, the plaintiff reported to Dr. Krosi that she was “very disappointed because her treatment for hepatitis C failed to suppress the virus” (Tr. 449) and that she “sometimes” experienced pain in her knees. (Tr. 449). On July 26, 2010, the plaintiff complained of left hip pain that was “on and off, ” which she believed was related to an incident that occurred when she was younger and under the influence of drugs. (Tr. 435). The plaintiff complained also of pain in the right side of her lower back. (Tr. 436). A physical examination of the plaintiff showed that she had full range of motion in her lumbosacral spine (Tr. 437); a neurological examination was unremarkable. (Tr. 437). An MRI on August 19, 2010, revealed “[m]oderate spondylotic changes [at] L2-L3 level with a moderate dextroscoliosis at L2.” (Tr. 352).

         On December 2, 2010, Dr. Krosi evaluated the plaintiff and noted that she reported in her “usual state of good health.” (Tr. 432). The plaintiff complained of menopause symptoms, but also reported that her quality of life has “greatly improved” since she stopped her hepatitis C treatment. (Tr. 432). The plaintiff did not report any musculoskeletal symptoms, and Dr. Krosi noted that her gait and stance were normal. (Tr. 433-34). On April 13, 2010, the plaintiff reported “achy and stiff joints” in the mornings, as well as sometimes “feeling poorly (malaise), ” which Dr. Krosi concluded was most likely related to her hepatitis C. (Tr. 428). The plaintiff rated her pain as a five out of ten. (Tr. 429). On February 22, 2012, the plaintiff explained to Dr. Krosi that she had “pain in her bones, ” but felt “well overall except for insomnia [that] she attributes to feeling anxious about her 26 year old daughter and the way she is caring for her baby.” (Tr. 424). Additionally, the plaintiff agreed to meet with a mental health provider “to sort through her feelings and anger which stresses her.” (Tr. 424). A physical examination revealed that the plaintiff's gait and stance were normal. (Tr. 426).

         On August 9, 2012, the plaintiff stated to Dr. Krosi that “she can't work because of many health issues: arthralgias, fatigue, body aches” (Tr. 417); Dr. Krosi noted “musculoskeletal symptoms” under the section titled “history of present illness.” (Tr. 417). A physical examination of the plaintiff's musculoskeletal system showed that the plaintiff had “[f]ull range of motion of the knees bilaterally, no swelling, [and] no effusion” (Tr. 419); a neurological examination revealed that the plaintiff's gait and stance were normal. (Tr. 419). On October 18, 2012, the plaintiff reported to Dr. Krosi that, over the preceding two weeks, she had experienced three instances of “loss of pleasure, ” no instances of “loss of interest in activities, ” and six instances of “feeling down or hopeless.” (Tr. 405). An examination of the plaintiff was unremarkable. (Tr. 405-408).

         On January 31, 2013, a review of the plaintiff's musculoskeletal system showed that the plaintiff had muscle and joint aches. (Tr. 398). A psychological review revealed “[a]nxiety mild, depression mild, and sleep disturbances . . . .” (Tr. 398). On October 2, 2013, Dr. Krosi noted that the plaintiff did not have any pain. (Tr. 383). On February 20, 2014, the plaintiff complained to Dr. Krosi of “achy bones” (Tr. 371, 780) and stated that it was “difficult for her to stand too long or sit for too long.” (Tr. 371, 780). The plaintiff stated also that her joints ached and that she was “too tired to work.” (Tr. 371, 780). A review of the plaintiff's musculoskeletal system revealed joint pain in the legs and back, and muscle aches. (Tr. 372, 781). Dr. Krosi concluded that the joint pain could be related to the plaintiff's hepatitis C (Tr. 373, 782); she also referred the plaintiff for mental health counseling. (Tr. 373). On May 5, 2014, Dr. Krosi evaluated the plaintiff, who complained again of “body aches” (Tr. 365, 773), but noted that she was “otherwise good.”[6] (Tr. 365, 773). The plaintiff stated also that she was “doing much better” after seeing a therapist and a psychiatrist. (Tr. 365, 773, 775). Dr. Krosi did not make any objective findings related to the plaintiff's musculoskeletal system or “body aches”; however, she noted that the plaintiff's gait and stance were normal. (Tr. 367, 775).

         On August 6, 2014, the plaintiff complained to Dr. Krosi that she had “body aches, joint pains and fatigue when [she] exerts herself” (Tr. 761), and as a result, she has been unable to hold a job. (Tr. 763). Following a physical examination of the plaintiff, Dr. Krosi noted that the plaintiff's pain was “possibly related to hepatitis C, ” and/or “fibromyalgia.”[7] (Tr. 763). An examination of the plaintiff on November 10, 2014, revealed that there was “[n]o localized joint pain, ” and “[n]o anxiety, no depression, and no sleep disturbances.” (Tr. 745). On July 20, 2015, the plaintiff complained of lower back pain, specifically, “[r]adicular pain, posterior aspect of lower extremities.” (Tr. 717). Dr. Krosi did not note any objective findings regarding the plaintiff's musculoskeletal system or her complaints of radicular pain; however, she noted that the plaintiff's gait and stance were normal. (Tr. 719-20). On September 16, 2015, Dr. Krosi referred the plaintiff for an x-ray of her left knee, which showed “mild degenerative arthritis.” (Tr. 591). On September 17, 2015, the plaintiff stated to Dr. Krosi that she had been experiencing left knee pain for two to three weeks and that, following physical therapy, her lower back pain was beginning to improve. (Tr. 710). Dr. Krosi diagnosed the plaintiff with “arthralgia of the [left] knee/patella/tibia/fibula, ” and referred her to physical therapy. (Tr. 712).

         2. DR. JOHN BATTISTA AND SUSAN MURRAY

         The plaintiff underwent extensive treatment with Dr. John Battista and counselor Susan Murray, M.A., LPC, LADC, at SHC beginning in April 2014. (See Tr. 502). On June 18, 2014, Dr. Battista and Ms. Murray completed a report for SSA regarding the plaintiff's mental health condition. (See Tr. 502-505). They indicated that the plaintiff suffered from major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, opioid dependence, and cocaine dependence. (Tr. 502). They noted also that the plaintiff's condition was “improved” and that she was able to manage her activities of daily living. (Tr. 502). Under the section titled “General appearance, ” they indicated that the plaintiff was “isolative, self critical, [and] irritable” (Tr. 502); under “Cognitive status, ” they found that the plaintiff had “intrusive memories, difficulty with attention and concentration, [and] obsessive checking.” (Tr. 502). They stated in the report that the plaintiff had “No Problem” with the following: “taking care of her personal hygiene”; “caring for her physical needs (i.e. dressing and eating)”; “using good judgment regarding safety and dangerous circumstances”; “carrying out single-step instructions”; “carrying out multi-step instructions”; or “changing from one simple task to another.” (Tr. 503-504). They noted that the plaintiff had “A Slight Problem” with the following: “focusing long enough to finish assigned simple activities or tasks”; and “performing basic work activities at a reasonable pace/finishing on time.” (Tr. 504). They indicated, however, that the plaintiff had “An Obvious Problem” with: “[u]sing appropriate coping skills to meet ordinary demands of a work environment”; “interacting appropriately with others in a work environment”; “asking questions or requesting assistance”; and “performing work activity in a sustained basis (i.e., 8 hrs per day, 5 days a week).” (Tr. 503). Lastly, they noted that the plaintiff had “A Serious Problem” with: “[h]andling frustration appropriately”; “respecting/responding appropriately to others in authority”; and “getting along with others without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes.” (Tr. 503-504). The report commented that the plaintiff had “anger and rage with frustration, ” “anger and rage/inability to communicate effectively, ” and “concentration issues.” (Tr. 503-504).

         Dr. Battista completed a “progress note” on October 8, 2014, in which he explained that the plaintiff “[d]escribe[d] multiple episodes of depression on and off for years” (Tr. 754), and that, at the time, the plaintiff had felt depressed for at least some portion of each day for two years. (Tr. 754). The plaintiff also explained that she was “[f]earful that people don't want to be around her, ” “[m]ore socially withdrawn, ” “[l]acks interest, ” and had “[n]o sexual interest.” (Tr. 754). Dr. Battista noted that the plaintiff had been gaining weight even though her appetite was poor, which he believed was due to a lack of exercise. (Tr. 754). In addition, the plaintiff told Dr. Battista that she had trouble falling asleep because she “can't turn her mind off at night.” (Tr. 754). The plaintiff indicated also that she cried “without reason, ” her “[c]ognition [was] impaired, ” and that she “[s]ometimes heard people calling her name.” (Tr. 754). Dr. Battista also included in the progress note that the plaintiff had “[s]elf critical thoughts” and that she got “angry easily, ” which was “an exacerbation of a life-long history of irritability.” (Tr. 754). Dr. Battista added that the plaintiff “associate[d] her anger with being sexually molested” when she was seven years old, and that the plaintiff ha[d] intrusive memories about this still.” (Tr. 754). He opined that the plaintiff “[m]eets criteria for PTSD, ” that her “symptoms are currently more active than in the past, ” and that she meets the criteria for “Major Depression, recurrent with psychotic features.” (Tr. 754). Dr. Battista explained that the plaintiff “[h]as some checking that does interfere with getting out of [the] house, ” but that he would not “diagnose [her] with OCD at this point.” (Tr. 754). On October 8, 2014, Dr. Battista noted that the plaintiff was “[i]mproving week over week.” (Tr. 755).

         On October 15, 2014 and November 7, 2014, Dr. Battista noted that certain medication that the plaintiff was taking made the plaintiff feel more irritable. (Tr. 750, 753). On October 29, 2014, Ms. Murray noted that the plaintiff had made “No Progress” over a ninety-day period and that the plaintiff had been “non-compliant with [the] attendance policy and is [at] risk for discharge from Behavioral Health.” (Tr. 765 (emphasis omitted)). On November 7, 2014, Dr. Battista indicated that the plaintiff's depression was “generally well controlled” (Tr. 750), but that the plaintiff was “still socially inhibited.” (Tr. 750).

         On April 2, 2015, the plaintiff underwent a ninety-day treatment plan review, which detailed the problems that treatment sought to address. Dr. Battista and Ms. Murray indicated that the plaintiff experienced “[d]epression, crying, anger, agitation and irritability daily, ” and that she continued “to have issues when it comes to her adult daughter, ” but was “much better with her partner.” (Tr. 819). They indicated that the plaintiff experienced “[i]ntrusive thoughts, memories and dreams of past trauma, ” although “her medications seem to have alleviated most symptoms.” (Tr. 819). The plaintiff's self-esteem was “poor but improved.” (Tr. 819). Dr. Battista and Ms. Murray noted additionally that the plaintiff had a “[h]istory of chronic severe illness requiring close medical monitoring, ” and that her “compliance issues” were “addressed and improved slightly.” (Tr. 819). They noted “[g]ood clinical improvement, ” and explained that the plaintiff would continue to see Ms. Murray “weekly for 52 weeks or less, with progress evaluated every 90 days.” (Tr. 819).

         On July 8, 2015, Dr. Battista completed a “progress note, ” which summarized the plaintiff's progress over five months. Dr. Battista indicated that the plaintiff's depression “comes and goes, ” and that, at times, she is irritable, moody, and short-tempered. (Tr. 723). Dr. Battista noted that, as of June 3, 2015, the plaintiff was taking sertraline, which was making her less anxious and less irritable;[8] he noted also that the plaintiff's depression was “under better control.” (Tr. 723).

         On July 29, 2015, Dr. Battista and Ms. Murray completed a document titled “Medical Report.” (Tr. 541-50). On the report, Dr. Battista and Ms. Murray indicated that the plaintiff suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, and that the combination of conditions prevented the plaintiff from working for twelve months or more. (Tr. 543). They detailed the following impacts on the plaintiff's ability to work: “depression, anxiety, irritability, agoraphobic, difficulty interacting without anger, difficulty interpersonally with men, ” and that “physical illness limits psychiatric medication intervention, concentration and social interactions on the job would be poor [and] problematic.” (Tr. 543). Dr. Battista and Ms. Murray noted also that the plaintiff's mental health and/or substance abuse issues impacted her ability to work because of “intrusive memories related to childhood sexual abuse, ” as well as “anger, irritability, difficulty with attention and concentration, isolative/social anxiety.” (Tr. 546). They indicated that the plaintiff was “Not Significantly Limited” in the following: remembering locations and work-like procedures; understanding and remembering very short, simple instructions; carrying out very short, simple instructions; making simple work-related decisions; asking simple questions or requesting assistance; being aware of normal hazards and taking appropriate precautions; and setting realistic goals or making plans independently of others. (Tr. 547-48). They noted that the plaintiff was “Moderately Limited” in understanding and remembering detailed instructions; carrying out detailed instructions; working in coordination with or proximity to others without being distracted by them; interacting appropriately with the general public; maintaining socially appropriate behavior and adhering to basic standards of neatness and cleanliness; responding appropriately to changes in the work setting; and traveling in unfamiliar places or using public transportation. (Tr. 547-48). Lastly, they stated that the plaintiff was “Markedly Limited” in maintaining attention and concentration for extended periods; performing activities within a schedule, maintaining regular attendance, and being punctual within customary tolerances; sustaining an ordinary routine without special supervision; accepting instructions and responding appropriately to criticism from supervisors; and getting along with co-workers or peers without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes. (Tr. 547-48). The report indicated that the plaintiff's condition had “improved with medication and therapy, ” but that she was “still minimally functional.” (Tr. 549).

         On January 14, 2016, Ms. Murray completed another “Medical Opinion Questionnaire, ” in which she noted that the plaintiff had “Unlimited or Very Good” ability to “[a]dhere to basic standards of neatness and cleanliness.” (Tr. 790). She noted that the plaintiff had a “Good” ability to do the following: “[t]ravel in unfamiliar place”; “[r]emember work-like procedures”; “[u]nderstand and remember very short and simple instructions”; “[c]arry out very short and simple instructions”; “[m]aintain attention for two hour segment”; “[m]ake simple work-related decisions”; “[a]sk simple questions or request assistance”; and “[b]e aware of normal hazards and take appropriate precautions.” (Tr. 790-91). Ms. Murray indicated that the plaintiff had a “Fair” ability to do the following: “[i]nteract appropriately with the general public”; “[m]aintain socially appropriate behavior”; “[u]se public transportation”; “[m]aintain regular attendance and be punctual within customary, usually strict tolerances”; “[w]ork in coordination with or proximity to others without being unduly distracting”; “[p]erform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods”; “[r]espond appropriately to changes in a routine work setting”; “[u]nderstand and remember detailed instructions”; and “[s]et realistic goals or make plans independently of others.” (Tr. 790-91). Ms. Murray noted that the plaintiff had “Poor” or no ability to do as follows: “[i]nteract appropriately with the general public”; “[m]aintain socially appropriate behavior”; “[m]aintain regular attendance and be punctual within customary, usually strict tolerances”; “[s]ustain an ordinary routine without special supervision”; “[c]omplete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms”; “[a]ccept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors”; “[g]et along with co-workers or peers without unduly distracting them or exhibiting ...


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.