United States District Court, D. Connecticut
KAREN M. BAILEY, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
WILLIAM I. GARFINKEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This is
an administrative appeal following the denial of the
plaintiff, Karen M. Bailey's, application for Title II
disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). It is
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).[1] Plaintiff now
moves for an order reversing the decision of the Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration (the
“Commissioner”), or in the alternative, an order
remanding her case for a rehearing. [Doc. # 22]. The
Commissioner, in turn, has moved for an order affirming her
decision. [Doc. # 25]. For the reasons set forth below, the
Commissioner's decision is affirmed.
PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
filed her DIB application on August 28, 2013, alleging a
disability onset date of July 1, 2011. Her claims were denied
at both the initial and reconsideration levels. Plaintiff
then requested a hearing. On July 22, 2016, a hearing was
held before Administrative Law Judge Ronald Thomas (the
“ALJ”). Plaintiff and a vocational expert
(“VE”) testified at the hearing. On October 21,
2016, the ALJ issued a decision denying Plaintiff's
claim. Plaintiff timely requested review of the ALJ's
decision by the Appeals Council. On November 3, 2017, the
Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision
the final determination of the Commissioner. This action
followed.
THE
ALJ'S DECISION
The ALJ
followed the sequential evaluation process for assessing
disability claims.[2] At Step One, the ALJ found that Plaintiff
has not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the
alleged onset date. (R. 18). At Step Two, the ALJ found the
following severe impairments: multiple sclerosis and asthma
with shortness of breath. (R. 19). The ALJ determined that
Plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome, left lateral
epicondylitis, right ankle tendon surgery, degenerative
changes of the cervical and lumbar spine, urinary frequency,
gastrointestinal reflux disease, hypothyroidism, and obesity
are not severe. (R. 19-22). At Step Three, the ALJ found
Plaintiff's severe impairments do not meet or medically
equal the severity of one of the listed impairments. (R.
13-14). Next, the ALJ determined Plaintiff retains the
following residual functional capacity[3]:
Plaintiff can perform light work except she requires an
environment free from concentrated exposure to poor
ventilation, dust, fumes, gases, humidity, odors, wetness,
and temperature extremes. She should avoid hazards such as
dangerous machinery, heights, and vibrations, but is able to
drive. She may perform occasional bending, balancing,
kneeling, crawling, twisting, squatting, and climbing but no
climbing ladders, ropes, or scaffolds.
(R. 23). At Step Four, the ALJ relied on the testimony of the
VE to conclude that Plaintiff can perform past relevant work
as an office manager, a teller, and bookkeeper, and a
customer service representative. (R. 28). Accordingly, the
ALJ found Plaintiff is not disabled under the Social Security
Act.
LEGAL
STANDARD
“A
district court reviewing a final . . . decision [of the
Commissioner of Social Security] pursuant to section 205(g)
of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), is
performing an appellate function.” Zambrana v.
Califano, 651 F.2d 842 (2d Cir. 1981). “The
findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any
fact, if supported by substantial evidence, [are]
conclusive….” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Accordingly, the district court does not make a de
novo determination of whether a plaintiff is disabled in
reviewing a denial of disability benefits. Id.;
Wagner v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
906 F.2d 856, 860 (2d Cir. 1990). Rather, the court's
function is to ascertain whether the Commissioner applied the
correct legal principles in reaching her conclusion, and
whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 985 (2d Cir. 1987).
Therefore, absent legal error, a decision of the Commissioner
cannot be set aside if it is supported by substantial
evidence. Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (2d
Cir. 1982). Further, if the Commissioner's decision is
supported by substantial evidence, that decision will be
sustained, even where there may also be substantial evidence
to support the claimant's contrary position. Schauer
v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 55, 57 (2d Cir. 1982).
Substantial evidence is “‘such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.'” Williams v. Bowen, 859 F.2d
255, 258 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)). Substantial evidence
must be “more than a scintilla or touch of proof here
and there in the record.” Williams, 859 F.2d
at 258.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
makes several arguments in support of her motion to reverse
and/or remand, which the Court will address in turn.
1.
The ALJ's Step Two Determination
Plaintiff
first argues that the ALJ should have found her lumbar and
cervical degenerative impairments, her bladder condition, and
her upper extremity symptoms to be severe. The Commissioner
responds that Plaintiff has not established these impairments
are severe.
At Step
Two, the ALJ determines the “severity” of a
claimant's impairments. Pursuant to the regulations, a
medically determinable impairment, or a combination of
impairments, is not severe “if it does not
significantly limit [the claimant's] physical or mental
ability to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. §
404.1522. “A finding of ‘not severe' should
be made if the medical evidence establishes only a
‘slight abnormality' which would have ‘no
more than a minimal effect on an individual's ability to
work.'” Rosario v. Apfel, No. 97-CV-5759,
1999 WL 294727, at *5 (quoting Bowen v. Yuckert, 482
U.S. 137, 154 n. 12 (1987)). “The claimant bears the
burden of presenting evidence establishing severity.”
Taylor v. Astrue, 32 F.Supp.3d 253, 265 (N.D.N.Y.
2012). While the second step of the evaluation process is
limited to screening out de minimis claims,
...