United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RAYMOND FRANCIS CLARK, JR.
v.
ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY[1]
RULING ON THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REVERSE THE
DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION
FOR REMAND FOR A HEARING, AND ON THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR AN ORDER AFFIRMING 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”]
denying the plaintiff disability insurance benefits
[“SSDI”].
I.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
On July
31, 2015, the plaintiff filed an application for SSDI,
claiming that he has been disabled since March 31, 2006,
[2] due
to a double hip replacement, diabetes, celiac disease, iron
deficiency, chronic gout, psoriatic arthritis, monoclonal
gammopathy, stage 3 chronic kidney disease, osteoarthritis,
osteopenia, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. (See
Doc. No. 9, Certified Transcript of Administrative
Proceedings, dated December 21, 2018 [“Tr.”]
103). The plaintiff’s applications were denied
initially and upon reconsideration (Tr. 127-30, 136-43), and
on October 24, 2017, a hearing was held before Administrative
Law Judge [“ALJ”] John Aletta, at which the
plaintiff and a vocational expert testified. (Tr. 34-57). On
November 16, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision
denying the plaintiff’s claim for benefits (Tr. 12-29).
On September 18, 2018, the Appeals Council denied the
request, thereby rendering the ALJ’s decision the final
decision of the Commissioner. (Tr. 1-5).
On
November 21, 2018, the plaintiff filed his complaint in this
pending action (Doc. No. 1), and on November 27, 2018, the
parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States
Magistrate Judge. (Doc. No. 7). This case was transferred
accordingly. On March 21, 2019, the plaintiff filed his
Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner (Doc. No.
11), with a brief (Doc. No. 11-2 [“Pl.’s
Mem.”]), exhibits (Doc. Nos. 11-3, 11-4, 11-5, 11-6),
and Statement of Material Facts (Doc. No. 11-1) in support.
On May 13, 2019, the defendant filed his Motion to Affirm
(Doc. No. 12 [“Def.’s Mem.”]), with a
Statement of Material Facts in support (Doc. No. 12-1).
For the
reasons stated below, the plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse
the Decision of the Commissioner (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED,
and the defendant’s Motion to Affirm (Doc. No. 12) is
DENIED.
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On the
date of the hearing, the plaintiff was sixty-three years old
(Tr. 41), and during the relevant period at issue in 2012, he
lived with his wife in a two-level home. (Tr. 45, 63). He
would use a snow blower, as necessary, and mowed the lawn on
a riding lawn mower. (Tr. 63). He could not dress himself
without his wife’s assistance because of his multiple
hand surgeries, but he could make the bed. (Tr. 63-64). He
completed high school and trained for a year to be a
respiratory therapist. (Tr. 44). He had a Class B driving
license, but “[t]hey took it away from [him] because of
diabetes.” (Tr. 44).
From
2002 to 2006, the plaintiff worked for CWPM, LLC, a trash
hauling company, supervising the sales department and
performing some sales work. (Tr. 46-47). From 2012 to 2014,
the plaintiff “was trying” to sell residential
real estate. (Tr. 48-49). He would research properties
on-line and would use the internet with one hand because he
could not use his left hand at that time. (Tr. 66). He
stopped the real estate work because it cost him a lot of
money in annual licensing fees, and there were several other
associated costs. (Tr. 68-69).
The
plaintiff testified that he could not work from March 1, 2012
to June 30, 2012 because he was “having significant
pain[]” in his neck, shoulders, right arm, and lower
back, and his ankles and feet were “giving [him] a lot
of problems.” (Tr. 50). The plaintiff explained that he
injured his left hand in June 2010 when he grabbed his gas
grill to keep it from falling over, and as “it fell
backwards[, ] it stripped all of the skin to the end of [his]
fingers. It took – they cut all the nerves,
ligaments.” (Tr. 52). He had three surgeries on that
hand as a result of this injury. (Tr. 52). The plaintiff
testified also that he had surgeries on both feet, a
laminectomy on his lower back, and he was seeing a
rheumatologist. (Tr. 52). He explained that he had psoriatic
arthritis, which included pain in his joints, and he had
“a hard time with . . . [his] ankles[.]” (Tr.
70-71). He had chronic edema in his feet and ankles, and he
would use compression socks. (Tr. 73). At the time of the
hearing, he was insulin dependent, and he had diabetic
neuropathy. (Tr. 72). He had gained about forty pounds from
taking Prednisone. (Tr. 74-75).
Between
March and June 2012, the plaintiff had “terrible
pain” in his right shoulder, that radiated down his
arm. (Tr. 79). He could not lift overhead and had
“problems” putting on his jacket. (Tr. 79).
Moreover, according to the plaintiff, during the relevant
time, he could not carry anything, he had trouble sleeping
because of pain when he turned, and he had pain bending,
stooping, kneeling and crouching. (Tr. 59). Additionally, at
that time, he had arthritis in his right hand, and the
surgeries on his left hand helped “as much as [they]
possibly could[, ]” but he still did not have any
feeling in the tips of three of his fingers, and he
“ended up with carpal tunnel because of the fingers
too.” (Tr. 61-62). He described his typical day as
moving around within the house, trying to do some work, and
then napping or resting. (Tr. 75-76). He could sit for a
“few hours[.]” (Tr. 77). He received regular
physical therapy following his surgeries. (Tr. 76). He used a
TENS[3]
machine on his back, as well as hot packs and cold packs.
(Tr. 78).
Additionally,
the intake interview notes from the plaintiff’s
application for benefits stated as follows:
Claimant was in significant discomfort/pain during the
interview. . . . His left hand was markedly stiff/immobil[e],
he could not make a fist and it had the appearance of a
prosthetic because it was so pale/stiff in comparison to
[the] right hand. [C]laimant spoke very proudly of working
hard his entire life and struggled to have to file for
disability. [O]n [three] separate occasions during [the]
[two]-hour long interview, claimant needed to take a break
and stand, take a couple of very stiff/painful steps, then
return to [his] seat.
(Tr. 230).
A
vocational expert testified that the plaintiff’s past
work as a sales manager and real estate agent were performed
at the sedentary level, and could be performed by a person
who could occasionally reach overhead with the right dominant
arm, occasionally handle items with the left non-dominant
hand, frequently climb ramps and stairs, and could frequently
balance, kneel, and crouch, occasionally climb ladders, ropes
or scaffolds, and occasionally crawl. (Tr. 83-84). If such a
person was limited further by occasionally fingering items
with the left non-dominant hand, that person would still be
able to perform the work of a sales manager, but the number
of jobs would be reduced. (Tr. 84). The vocational expert
testified that the limitations on handling and fingering
would eliminate “a lot of medium jobs[, ]” but
such a person could perform light work as a security guard,
usher, and parking lot attendant. (Tr. 86).
III.
THE ALJ’S DECISION
Following
the five-step evaluation process, [4] the ALJ found that the
plaintiff last met the insured status requirements through
June 30, 2012 (Tr. 17), and that the plaintiff did not engage
in substantial gainful activity during the amended alleged
onset date of March 1, 2012 through his date last insured of
June 30, 2012. (Tr. 17, citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1571 et
seq.).
At step
two, the ALJ found that, through his date last insured, the
plaintiff had the following severe impairments: degenerative
disc disease of the lumbar spine, post-laminectomy syndrome,
degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, status post
cervical spine discectomy, osteoarthritis of the right
shoulder, penritendonitis of the right shoulder, adhesive
capsulitis of the right shoulder, stenosing tensovitis of the
little finger of the left hand, and status post flexor tendon
injuries of the left fingers. (Tr. 18-19, citing 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(c)). The ALJ concluded at step three that the
plaintiff did not have an impairment or combination of
impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of the
listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix
1. (Tr. 19-20, citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(d),
404.1525 and 404.1526). Specifically, the ALJ concluded that
the claimant’s physical impairments did not meet or
medically equal Listings 1.02 (major dysfunction of a joint),
1.04 (disorders of the spine) and 11.14 (peripheral
neuropathy).
The ALJ
concluded that the plaintiff had the residual functional
capacity [“RFC”] to perform light work, as
defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b), except he could
occasionally reach overhead with his right dominant arm and
could occasionally handle, feel and finger items with his
left non-dominant hand. (Tr. 21). Additionally, he could
frequently climb ramps and stairs, and occasionally climb
ladders, ropes and scaffolds; he could frequently balance,
kneel, and crouch, and occasionally crawl; and, he could not
work at unprotected heights. (Tr. 21). At step four, the ALJ
concluded that, through his date last insured, the plaintiff
could perform his past relevant work as a sales manager, as
that work did not require the performance of work-related
activities precluded by the claimant’s RFC. (Tr. 27-28,
citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1565). In the alternative, the
ALJ concluded that the plaintiff “acquired work skills
from past relevant work that were transferable to other
occupations with jobs existing in significant numbers in the
national economy.” (Tr. 28, citing 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1569, 404.1569(a) and 404.1568(d)). The ALJ
considered the vocational expert’s testimony that a
person of the profile of this plaintiff could have performed
the work of an office manager and employment interviewer,
with very little, if any, vocational adjustment. (Tr. 28-29).
Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that the plaintiff was not
under a disability at any time from March 1, 2012, the
amended alleged onset date, through June 30, 2012, the date
last insured. (Tr. 29, citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)).
IV.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The
scope of 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). The court may “set aside
the Commissioner’s determination that a claimant is not
disabled only if the factual findings are not supported by
substantial evidence or if the decision is based on legal
error.” Burgess v. Astrue,537 F.3d 117, 127
(2d Cir. 2008) (citation & internal quotation marks
omitted); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 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) (citation omitted); see Yancey
v. Apfel,145 F.3d 106, 111 (2d Cir. 1998) (citation
omitted). “The substantial evidence rule also applies
to inferences and conclusions that are drawn from findings of
fact.” Gonzalez v. Apfel,23 F.Supp.2d 179,
189 (D. Conn. 1998) (citing Rodriguez v. Califano,431 F.Supp. 421, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)). However, the court may
not decide facts, reweigh evidence, or substitute its
judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Dotson v.
Shalala,1 F.3d 571, 577 (7th Cir. 1993) (citation
omitted). Instead, the court must scrutinize the entire
record to determine the reasonableness of the ALJ’s
factual ...