Bates v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
15
ORDER: that Defendant's 11 motion for judgment on the pleadings is Granted; that the Commissioner's determination that the plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, is Affirmed and the clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon this determination, Dismissing plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 10/14/2020. (hmr)
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 15
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________
MARK B.,
v.
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.
3:19-CV-1062 (DEP)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL,
SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR PLAINTIFF
DOLSON LAW OFFICE
126 N. Salina St., Suite 3B
Syracuse, NY 13202
STEVEN DOLSON, ESQ.
FOR DEFENDANT
HON. ANTOINETTE L. BACON
Acting United States Attorney
P.O. Box 7198
100 S. Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261-7198
JOSHUA L. KERSHNER, ESQ.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
DAVID E. PEEBLES
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER
Currently pending before the court in this action, in which plaintiff
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 15
seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative determination by the
Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 405(g) and
1383(c)(3), are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.1 Oral
argument was heard in connection with those motions on October 8, 2020,
during a telephone conference conducted on the record. At the close of
argument, I issued a bench decision in which, after applying the requisite
deferential review standard, I found that the Commissioner=s determination
resulted from the application of proper legal principles and is supported by
substantial evidence, providing further detail regarding my reasoning and
addressing the specific issues raised by the plaintiff in this appeal.
After due deliberation, and based upon the court=s oral bench
decision, which has been transcribed, is attached to this order, and is
incorporated herein by reference, it is hereby
ORDERED, as follows:
1)
Defendant=s motion for judgment on the pleadings is
GRANTED.
This matter, which is before me on consent of the parties pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ' 636(c), has been treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in
General Order No. 18. Under that General Order once issue has been joined, an action
such as this is considered procedurally, as if cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings had been filed pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
1
2
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 15
2)
The Commissioner=s determination that the plaintiff was not
disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits under the
Social Security Act, is AFFIRMED.
3)
The clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based
upon this determination, DISMISSING plaintiff=s complaint in its entirety.
Dated:
October 14, 2020
Syracuse, NY
3
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 4 of 15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
MARK B.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
3:19-CV-1062
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION - October 8, 2020
HONORABLE DAVID E. PEEBLES
United States Magistrate Judge, Presiding
APPEARANCES (by telephone)
For Plaintiff:
STEVEN R. DOLSON
Attorney at Law
126 North Salina Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
For Defendant:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of Regional General Counsel
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
BY: JOSHUA L. KERSHNER, ESQ.
Eileen McDonough, RPR, CRR
Official United States Court Reporter
P.O. Box 7367
Syracuse, New York 13261
(315)234-8546
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 5 of 15
2
Decision - 10/8/2020 - 19-cv-1062
1
THE COURT:
All right.
Thank you both.
Let me
2
begin by congratulating counsel for excellent presentations.
3
I found this case to be fascinating.
4
issue that's been raised but a complicated one, nonetheless.
5
It's a very narrow
The plaintiff has commenced this proceeding
6
pursuant to 42, United States Code, Sections 405(g) and
7
1383(c)(3) to challenge an adverse determination by the
8
Commissioner of Social Security finding that he was not
9
disabled at the relevant times and, therefore, ineligible for
10
11
the benefits which he sought.
The background is as follows.
The plaintiff was born in November of 1966.
He is
12
currently 53 years of age.
13
alleged onset of his disability in October of 2015.
14
Plaintiff stands approximately 5-foot-9 or 5-foot-10-inches
15
in height and weighs at various times between 183 and
16
200 pounds.
17
Plaintiff was 49 years old at the
Plaintiff lives in Norwich in a house with his
18
wife, who he married in November of 2016, and two
19
stepdaughters who were 17 and 18 years of age in June of
20
2018, and according to my calculations, they are now 19 and
21
20, respectively.
22
Plaintiff has a high school diploma and an Associate's Degree
23
in Business Administration.
24
does drive.
25
Plaintiff also has two older sons.
He has a driver's license and
Plaintiff stopped working in October of 2015.
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 6 of 15
3
Decision - 10/8/2020 - 19-cv-1062
1
Prior to that time he worked as a supervisor in
2
pharmaceutical manufacturing, as a machine operator, as a
3
soldering assembler, and a warehouse coordinator.
4
Mentally, plaintiff suffers from anxiety.
Although
5
he has not undergone any significant psychiatric treatment,
6
he does take medications as needed to address his anxiety.
7
His conditions of concern in this case are physical and stem
8
from both back and neck pain or degenerative disc disease at
9
those levels.
10
hips and legs.
11
the hypertension apparently is being controlled adequately
12
with medication.
13
He experiences pain that radiates into his
He also suffers from hypertension, although
Plaintiff's physical conditions stem from a fall
14
from a ladder in 2005 and another incident in 2012 when a
15
porch roof fell on him.
16
injections.
17
He has not undergone any surgery or
He has done physical therapy.
There are several objective reports in the record
18
addressing both his lumbar and cervical conditions.
19
from November 2011, at page 277, reveals no fracture or
20
subluxation identified.
21
resonance imaging, or MRI, testing on April 18, 2016.
22
report appears at page 270 and 271.
23
disc and degenerative changes, which are specifically
24
described, at T12-L1 and L2-L3, as well as L4-L5, and L5-S1.
25
An X-ray
Plaintiff underwent magnetic
The
The impression was the
Plaintiff underwent another spinal X-ray on
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 7 of 15
4
Decision - 10/8/2020 - 19-cv-1062
1
January 9, 2014, and the results appear at page 276 of the
2
record.
3
an X-ray taken of plaintiff's lumbar region on May 4, 2016;
4
that's reported at 294.
5
minimal degenerative spurring.
6
plaintiff underwent another lumbar MRI, the report appears at
7
299 and 300.
8
disease, detailed above, and the focus is on L3-L4 and L4-L5.
9
The result was mild degenerative changes.
There was
The impression from that X-ray was
On November 16, 2017,
The impression was multilevel degenerative disc
Plaintiff underwent a limited spinal X-ray on
10
November 8, 2017, the result appears at page 301.
11
the impression is mild degenerative disc disease with no
12
fracture or subluxation identified, and that appears at 301
13
and 302.
14
And again
Plaintiff also underwent testing of his cervical
15
region.
There was an X-ray taken on January 9, 2014, that
16
appears at 275, that identifies degenerative changes and
17
straightened cervical lordosis.
18
underwent cervical MRI testing, the result appears at 272 and
19
273, and reflects various bulges at certain levels, including
20
C4-C5 and C3-C4.
21
result appears at 274, and the impression is straightening of
22
the cervical lordosis, and degenerative disc disease at C5-C6
23
and C6-C7.
24
impression of suggestion of possible disc disease at C3-C4
25
and C5-C6, and straightening.
On April 1, 2016, plaintiff
An X-ray was taken on April 25, 2016, the
An X-ray taken on May 4, 2016, resulted in the
That result appears at
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 8 of 15
5
Decision - 10/8/2020 - 19-cv-1062
1
page 295.
2
On December 7, 2017, a limited X-ray was taken of
3
plaintiff's cervical spine.
The result appears at 297 and
4
298.
5
and C5-C6 degenerative disc disease.
The impression is straightening of cervical lordosis,
6
Plaintiff's health care providers include Nurse
7
Practitioner Tiffany Rivenburgh at Bassett Healthcare, who is
8
described as his primary care provider.
9
undergone chiropractic treatment with Russell James and has
10
been seen at UHS Orthopedics by Nurse Practitioner Kristen
11
Menard.
12
He has also
Plaintiff has been prescribed various medications,
13
including Flexeril, Naproxen, Ibuprofen, Atenolol,
14
Levothyroxine, Simvastatin, and Lisinopril.
15
In terms of daily activities, plaintiff cooks
16
daily, shops weekly, showers daily, dresses, watches
17
television, radio, socializes with family and friends, mows
18
the lawn, he does it in five sections with breaks.
19
dishes, does not do laundry.
20
short walks.
21
one half of a pack of cigarettes per day.
22
alcohol daily, but does not use illegal drugs.
23
He does
He vacuums, sweeps and goes for
Plaintiff is a smoker.
He smokes approximately
He also drinks
Procedurally, plaintiff applied for Title II and
24
Title XVI benefits on March 19, 2016, alleging an onset date
25
of October 13, 2015.
He claimed disability based on
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 9 of 15
6
Decision - 10/8/2020 - 19-cv-1062
1
arthritis in his back and neck and numbness in his hands and
2
feet.
3
Transcript.
4
That appears at page 183 of the Administrative
A hearing was conducted on June 29, 2018, by
5
Administrative Law Judge Victor Horton, who addressed
6
plaintiff's disability claim.
7
on August 23, 2018, that became a final determination of the
8
Agency on July 5, 2019, when the Social Security
9
Administration Appeals Council denied plaintiff's application
10
for review.
11
ALJ Horton issued a decision
and is timely.
12
This action was commenced on August 28, 2019,
In his decision, ALJ Horton applied the familiar
13
five-step sequential test for determining disability.
14
first noted that plaintiff's insured status ended on
15
September 30, 2018.
16
He
He then found at step one that plaintiff had not
17
engaged in substantial gainful activity since his alleged
18
onset date.
19
At step two, ALJ Horton concluded that plaintiff
20
does suffer from severe impairments that impose more than
21
minimal limitations on his ability to perform basic work
22
functions, including degenerative disc disease of the lumbar
23
spine with disc protrusion and tear at the L5-S1 level,
24
degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine with disc
25
protrusion at the C4-C5 level, and chronic pain syndrome.
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 10 of 15
Decision - 10/8/2020 - 19-cv-1062
7
1
At step three, ALJ Horton concluded that
2
plaintiff's conditions do not meet or medically equal any of
3
the listed presumptively disabling conditions set forth in
4
the regulations, specifically considering listing 1.04.
5
At step four -- prior to going to step four, I
6
should say that the Administrative Law Judge crafted a
7
residual functional capacity finding, or RFC, determining
8
that plaintiff does retain the ability to perform light work
9
with various limitations that are set forth at page 15 of the
10
Administrative Transcript, including, but not limited to, the
11
claimant can frequently reach in all directions, including
12
overhead, and the claimant can never lift overhead.
13
Applying that RFC finding at step four, with the
14
assistance of vocational expert testimony, ALJ Horton
15
concluded that plaintiff is capable of performing his past
16
relevant work as a production supervisor, both as performed
17
actually and as generally performed.
18
In the alternative, proceeding to step five,
19
notwithstanding the step four finding, and again based on the
20
testimony of the vocational expert, ALJ Horton concluded that
21
plaintiff is capable of performing work available in the
22
national economy as an injection molding machine attendant, a
23
light work position with an SVP of 2, and therefore concluded
24
that plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant time.
25
As you know, the Court's function is limited to
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 11 of 15
Decision - 10/8/2020 - 19-cv-1062
8
1
determining whether correct legal principles were applied and
2
substantial evidence supports the resulting finding.
3
Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant
4
evidence as a reasonable mind would find sufficient to
5
support a conclusion.
6
In this case, plaintiff's contention is that the
7
Administrative Law Judge failed to resolve a conflict between
8
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, or DOT, and the
9
vocational expert testimony concerning the restriction on
10
overhead lifting.
11
the RFC finding.
12
conflict between the DOT and the testimony of the vocational
13
expert, the Administrative Law Judge must elicit a reasonable
14
explanation for the conflict and resolve it before relying on
15
the testimony of the vocational expert, and the reasoning
16
must be set forth.
17
Plaintiff does not in this case challenge
No question that if there is an apparent
As the Social Security Ruling 00-4p makes that
18
clear, and the Second Circuit has reiterated and reaffirmed
19
that in Lockwood versus Commissioner of Social Security
20
Administration, 914 F.3d 87, a decision from January 23,
21
2019, it is insufficient, as the Second Circuit made clear in
22
Lockwood, to rely merely on a conclusory statement from a
23
vocational expert that his or her testimony is consistent
24
with the DOT.
25
The defendant argues that there is no conflict
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 12 of 15
Decision - 10/8/2020 - 19-cv-1062
9
1
here.
Light work, which is a finding of the RFC limitations
2
and which the two positions in question fall under, includes
3
lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent
4
lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds, 20
5
CFR Section 404.1567(b).
6
Titles does not specify a direction for the required lifting
7
under the light work definition.
8
Occupational Titles, or DOT, listings for the two positions
9
in question, general supervisor and injection molding machine
The Dictionary of Occupational
The Dictionary of
10
tender, speak to lifting.
11
Section 183.167-018, specifies that it is light work with no
12
direction specified and requires occasional reaching, meaning
13
less than one-third of the time, without specifying
14
direction.
15
injection molding machine tender, also specifies light work
16
and requires frequent reaching, meaning one-third to
17
two-thirds of the time, that's again without specifying
18
direction.
19
non-exertional limitation.
20
The general supervisor, DOT
DOT Section 556.685-038, that relates to
Reaching, of course, under SSR 83-10 is a
This case is very similar to what was confronted by
21
the Second Circuit in Lockwood.
That case involved a
22
residual functional capacity finding that limited the
23
plaintiff to no overhead reaching.
24
jobs that were in question in that case required reaching
25
with no direction specified, and so a conflict existed.
The DOT for those three
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 13 of 15
Decision - 10/8/2020 - 19-cv-1062
1
10
I did have a problem with this case, and I went
2
back and forth because I understand the Commissioner's
3
argument that normally lifting is something that is done from
4
the waist level down, that would be the normal understanding
5
of lifting.
There certainly isn't anything in the DOT that
6
specifies.
I did find, however, the selected characteristics
7
of occupations defined in the revised Dictionary of
8
Occupational Titles, 1993 edition, published by the United
9
States Department of Labor Employment and Training
10
Administration, it's called the SCODICOT, in Appendix C it
11
addresses physical demands and defines lifting as, quote,
12
"Raising or lowering an object from one level to another
13
(includes upward pulling)."
14
necessarily seem to limit to lifting from the waist down.
15
That definition did not
I do believe that there is a conflict between
16
certainly at step five and at step four, as generally
17
performed the supervisory position, because the Dictionary of
18
Occupational Titles characterizes those as light work and
19
does not speak to lifting.
20
be harmless.
21
cited by the Commissioner, Jasinski versus Barnhart, 341 F.3d
22
182 (Second Circuit 2003).
23
concerning the fact that lifting was not required in his
24
position as a supervisor, the vocational expert heard that
25
testimony, was aware of the hypothetical posed which limited
However, I believe the error to
This is the case similar to Jasinski, which was
The plaintiff gave testimony
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 14 of 15
11
Decision - 10/8/2020 - 19-cv-1062
1
the no overhead lifting, and testified that plaintiff was
2
capable of performing his past relevant work as actually
3
performed.
4
otherwise, and plaintiff did not carry that burden.
5
It was plaintiff's burden at step four to prove
So, I do find error at step four and five, but I
6
find it was harmless for the reasons that I just stated.
7
will, therefore, grant judgment on the pleadings to the
8
defendant and order dismissal of plaintiff's complaint.
9
I
I found this case to be very interesting and,
10
frankly, went back and forth on it, but in the end I think
11
for the reasons stated that the case should be dismissed.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you both for excellent presentations.
you stay safe.
*
*
*
Hope
Case 3:19-cv-01062-DEP Document 15 Filed 10/14/20 Page 15 of 15
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I, EILEEN MCDONOUGH, RPR, CRR, Federal Official
Realtime Court Reporter, in and for the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York,
do hereby certify that pursuant to Section 753, Title 28,
United States Code, that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of the stenographically reported proceedings held
in the above-entitled matter and that the transcript page
format is in conformance with the regulations of the
Judicial Conference of the United States.
________________________________
EILEEN MCDONOUGH, RPR, CRR
Federal Official Court Reporter
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?