Fargnoli v. Saul
Filing
17
ORDER: ORDERED, as follows: 1) Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. 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. Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 1/8/2021. (khr)
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________
JASON F.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No.
3:19-CV-1355 (DEP)
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
__________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR PLAINTIFF
LACHMAN & GORTON LAW FIRM
1500 East Main St.
P.O. Box 89
Endicott, NY 13761-0089
PETER A. GORTON, ESQ.
FOR DEFENDANT
HON. ANTOINETTE L. BACON
Acting United States Attorney
P.O. Box 7198
100 S. Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261-7198
JESSICA RICHARDS, 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-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 22
seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative determination by the
Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g), are
cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. 1 Oral argument was heard
in connection with those motions on December 23, 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.
1
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.
2
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 3 of 22
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:
January 8, 2021
Syracuse, NY
3
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 4 of 22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
JASON F.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
3:19-CV-1355
ANDREW SAUL,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------x
Transcript of DECISION - December 23, 2020
HONORABLE DAVID E. PEEBLES
United States Magistrate Judge, Presiding
APPEARANCES (by telephone)
For Plaintiff:
LACHMAN, GORTON LAW FIRM
Attorneys at Law
1500 East Main Street
Endicott, NY 13761
BY: PETER A. GORTON, ESQ.
For Defendant:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
15 New Sudbury Street
Boston, MA 02203
BY: JESSICA RICHARDS, 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-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 5 of 22
2
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
THE COURT:
Thank you, Counsel, for your excellent
2
presentations.
3
be an interesting case.
4
I enjoyed working with you.
I found this to
The plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42,
5
United States Code, 405(g) to challenge an adverse
6
determination of the Commissioner of Social Security finding
7
that plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times and,
8
therefore, ineligible for the disability insurance benefits
9
for which he applied.
10
The background is as follows:
Plaintiff was born
11
in April of 1981.
12
Plaintiff was 34 years old at the onset of his alleged
13
disability in January of 2016.
14
Vestal, New York, with his mother and two dogs, which he
15
cares for.
16
issues.
17
He is currently 39 years of age.
Plaintiff lives in a house in
Plaintiff's mother has significant medical
Plaintiff stands approximately 6-foot 4-inches in
18
height, and at various times has weighed between 400 and
19
450 pounds; 450 pounds appearing at page 371 of the
20
Administrative Transcript.
21
Plaintiff has a high school education and one
22
semester of college education.
He dropped out of college for
23
medical reasons.
24
As a senior in high school, plaintiff suffered a trauma when
25
his father died in his arms in his senior year in 2000.
While in school he was in regular classes.
He
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 6 of 22
3
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
required counseling after that event.
2
Plaintiff has a driver's license.
Plaintiff
3
stopped working apparently in June of 2016, according to
4
page 45 of the Administrative Transcript, his hearing
5
testimony, and his statement to Dr. Moore.
6
has stated that he has looked for and applied for work since
7
that time; the reference is page 48 and 236 of the
8
Administrative Transcript.
9
positions in the past.
He testified and
Plaintiff has held several
He was a health care driver from
10
April of 2001 to April of 2009.
11
a corrections officer.
12
auto detailer.
13
he was a supervisor in a fire and water restoration service
14
office.
15
as a paper delivery person driving in his car for up to two
16
hours delivering papers.
17
to Dr. Moore, that employment ended when his contract expired
18
and the newspaper downsized.
19
however, that he could no longer physically carry out the
20
responsibilities of that job.
21
In the summer of 2008 he was
In the summer of 2009 he worked as an
In the winter of 2009 to the spring of 2010
And from April of 2011 until June of 2016, he worked
According to plaintiff's statement
He also stated to Dr. Moore,
Physically, plaintiff suffers from back pain that
22
radiates into his legs bilaterally and results in numbness
23
and tingling.
24
known as spondylolysis, which was surgically repaired on
25
March 31, 1999 through an open reduction and fixation with a
He suffered from a pars defect, which is also
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 7 of 22
4
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
bone graft.
He also suffers from an L5-S1 lumbar issue.
2
There was a magnetic resonance imaging testing of his lumbar
3
spine on June 30, 2016, that appears at page 257, which notes
4
that, "The MRI does show L2-L3 severe disc space collapse and
5
near auto-fusion anteriorly.
6
stenosis.
7
changes L5-S1 without herniation.
8
appear to be within normal limits."
9
on that page that plaintiff ambulates without difficulty and
There is no significant
There is also evidence of advanced discogenic
The remaining disc spaces
There is also notation
10
that the plaintiff was advised to lose weight and is not a
11
surgical candidate.
12
The plaintiff also underwent an X-ray of his lumbar
13
spine on April 24, 2018, that's at page 366 through 368,
14
which reflected mild L5-S1 disc space narrowing.
15
X-ray also taken on that date, at page 367, appears normal.
16
The plaintiff underwent nerve blocks on June 27, 2016 and
17
September 25, 2016.
18
A pelvic
Physically, he also suffers from bilateral knee
19
issues, worse on the left side.
Plaintiff underwent physical
20
therapy from January of 2017 to February of 2017, for his
21
knees primarily.
The records of that physical therapy are
22
reflected in 7F.
He also suffers from obesity,
23
hyperlipidemia, hypertension, he experienced a broken hand in
24
or about 2001, allergies, and neck pain.
25
require any assistive devices.
Plaintiff does not
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 8 of 22
5
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
Mentally, plaintiff suffers from depressive
2
disorder, panic disorder, and anxiety.
3
consultative examiner, Dr. Mary Ann Moore, also diagnosed
4
plaintiff as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder,
5
or PTSD, although I note that plaintiff's treating
6
psychologist, Dr. Lister, doesn't appear to have listed that
7
as a recognized diagnosis.
8
9
The Agency's
Plaintiff does obtain primary medical care from UHS
Primary Care, principally through Physicians Assistant Gina
10
Callahan and Nurse Practitioner Cori Pane.
11
treated with Orthopedic Associates, Dr. Eric Seybold, who saw
12
him in 1998 and 1999 concerning the pars defect, and again
13
four times between April 13, 2016 and September 15, 2016 for
14
plaintiff's back issues, lumbar back issues, lower lumbar
15
back issues, I should say.
16
Psychology Associates, primarily with Dr. Michael Lister, a
17
psychologist, since January 16, 2017, and he receives
18
cognitive behavioral therapy from Dr. Lister.
19
He has also
He also has treated with Oakdale
Plaintiff has been prescribed various medications
20
over time, including Gabapentin, Meloxicam, Zoloft,
21
Neurontin, Vistaril, and medical marijuana.
22
Plaintiff has a fairly robust range of activities
23
of daily living, reflected at pages 261 and 270 to 271 of the
24
Transcript, as well as in his hearing testimony.
25
plaintiff is capable of showering, he can dress, cook, clean,
The
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 9 of 22
6
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
do laundry, care for and walk his dogs, read, socialize with
2
friends, visit family, use the internet.
3
games.
4
is a competitive pistol target shooter and a member of a
5
shooting club.
6
He plays video
He races radio controlled cars with friends.
And he
Plaintiff never smoked.
Procedurally, plaintiff applied for Title II
7
benefits under the Social Security Act on September 5, 2016,
8
alleging an onset date of January 20, 2016.
9
alleges disability based on a back injury, overweight, bad
At page 170 he
10
knees, back pain, nerve damage to the back, and nerve damage
11
to the right leg.
12
by Administrative Law Judge David Romeo with a vocational
13
expert to address plaintiff's application for benefits.
14
A hearing was conducted on August 3, 2018,
On November 8, 2018, ALJ Romeo issued an
15
unfavorable decision.
16
the Agency on October 9, 2019, when the Social Security
17
Administration Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for
18
review.
19
timely.
20
That became a final determination of
This action was commenced on November 4, 2019 and is
In his decision, ALJ Romeo applied the familiar
21
five-step sequential test for determining disability.
22
first noted preliminarily that plaintiff was insured through
23
December 31, 2020.
24
25
He
At step one, the Administrative Law Judge concluded
that plaintiff has not engaged in substantial gainful
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 10 of 22
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
7
1
activity since January 20, 2016, but noted that whether
2
plaintiff's paper route was viewed as SGA would not affect
3
the outcome, and he further noted that he has considered the
4
ability to perform that work in crafting his residual
5
functional capacity, or RFC, determination.
6
At step two, ALJ Romeo concluded that plaintiff
7
does suffer from severe impairments that impose more than
8
minimal limitation on his ability to perform work functions,
9
including degenerative disc disease and degenerative joint
10
disease of the lumbar spine, status post pars defect surgery,
11
anxiety, panic disorder, depressive disorder, morbid obesity,
12
and cannabis use disorder.
13
At step three, ALJ Romeo concluded that plaintiff's
14
conditions do not meet or medically equal any of the listed
15
presumptively disabling conditions set forth in the
16
Commissioner's regulations, specifically considering listing
17
1.04 and the other 1.00 listings related to the spine, 11.00,
18
14.00, 12.04, 12.06, and 12.15.
19
plaintiff's obesity in accordance with Social Security Ruling
20
02-01p.
21
He also considered
The Administrative Law Judge next determined that,
22
notwithstanding his conditions, plaintiff retains the ability
23
to perform sedentary work, with the exception that physically
24
he can occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl,
25
climb ramps and climb stairs; cannot climb ropes, ladders or
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 11 of 22
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
8
1
scaffolds.
2
understand, remember and carry out simple instructions and
3
make simple work-related decisions, and can tolerate a low
4
level of work pressure defined as work not requiring
5
multitasking, detailed job tasks, significant independent
6
judgment, very short deadlines, teamwork in completing job
7
tasks, or more than occasional changes in the work setting.
8
9
In light of his mental conditions, plaintiff can
Applying that RFC finding at step four, the
Administrative Law Judge concluded plaintiff is incapable of
10
performing his past relevant work as a home restoration
11
service cleaner and as a driver.
12
At step five, the Administrative Law Judge
13
initially noted that if plaintiff could perform a full range
14
of sedentary work, the Medical-Vocational Guidelines, or the
15
so-called Grids, would direct a finding of no disability.
16
Because of additional limitations restricting the job base on
17
which the Grids are predicated, he resorted to the testimony
18
of a vocational expert and concluded based on that testimony
19
that, notwithstanding his limitations, plaintiff is capable
20
of performing available work in the national economy, and
21
cited representative occupations, including elections clerk,
22
credit card call out operator, surveillance monitor, and tube
23
operator.
24
disabled at the relevant times.
25
And, therefore, found that the plaintiff was not
The Court's function in this case is to determine
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 12 of 22
9
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
whether correct legal principles were applied and the
2
resulting determinations are supported by substantial
3
evidence, which is defined as such relevant evidence as a
4
reasonable mind would find sufficient to support a
5
conclusion.
6
Social Security Administration Commissioner, 683 F.3d 443,
7
that this is an exacting and highly deferential standard.
8
And the Court went on to note in Brault that under this
9
substantial evidence standard, once an ALJ finds a fact, that
The Second Circuit has noted in Brault versus
10
fact can be rejected only if a reasonable fact-finder would
11
have to conclude otherwise.
12
In this case, the plaintiff has raised four basic
13
contentions, some of which are interrelated.
14
that the residual functional capacity is not supported by
15
substantial evidence in that he cannot meet the sitting
16
requirements and the work pace and attendance demands of
17
work.
18
He contends
Secondly, he challenges the rejection of the
19
treating source opinions of Dr. Seybold and Dr. Lister, and
20
challenges the mental components of the residual functional
21
capacity finding as well.
22
And lastly, plaintiff argues that the step five
23
determination is flawed due to the errors in the residual
24
functional capacity and the hypothetical that was posed to
25
the vocational expert.
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 13 of 22
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
10
The first task, as you know, in a case of this
2
nature is for the Administrative Law Judge to determine
3
plaintiff's residual functional capacity, something that is
4
pivotal to the remainder of the analysis.
5
represents a finding of the range of tasks he is capable of
6
performing notwithstanding his impairments, and is informed
7
by consideration of all of the relevant medical and other
8
evidence; 20 CFR Section 404.1545(a)(3).
9
The claimant's RFC
Of course, as is true of any portion of the
10
disability finding, the residual functional capacity must be
11
supported by substantial evidence.
12
capable of performing a full range of sedentary work subject
13
to additional limitations.
14
20 CFR Section 404.1567 as involving "lifting no more than
15
10 pounds at a time and occasionally lifting or carrying
16
articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools.
17
Although a sedentary job is defined as one which involves
18
sitting, a certain amount of walking and standing is often
19
necessary in carrying out job duties."
20
been clarified by a subsequent ruling such that sedentary
21
work involves periods of standing or walking for no more than
22
two hours of an eight-hour workday and sitting up to a total
23
of approximately six hours in a similar period; SSR 96-9p and
24
SSR 83-10.
25
The plaintiff was found
Sedentary work is defined under
The regulation has
In this case, the residual functional capacity
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 14 of 22
11
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
finding was explained by the Administrative Law Judge at
2
pages 27 through 30 of the Administrative Transcript.
3
summary, which appears at 30 to 31, the Administrative Law
4
Judge contends and finds that the RFC is supported by the
5
opinions of Dr. Jenouri, Dr. Moore, Dr. Seybold, Dr. Lister,
6
Dr. Juriga, objective medical evidence, and activities of
7
daily living.
8
9
In his
In arriving at his opinion, the Administrative Law
Judge was required to evaluate opinions of two treating
10
sources, Dr. Seybold and Dr. Lister.
11
of a treating physician such as those two regarding the
12
nature and severity of an impairment is entitled to
13
considerable deference provided it is supported by medically
14
acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and
15
is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.
16
opinions are not controlling, however, if they are contrary
17
to other substantial evidence in the record, including the
18
opinions of other medical experts, and conflicts that arise
19
in the form of contradictory medical evidence in a record are
20
resolved properly by the Commissioner under Veino versus
21
Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578.
22
Ordinarily the opinion
Such
In this case, there are two opinions from
23
Dr. Seybold.
The first was issued on January 13, 2017, and
24
appears at pages 293 to 295 of the Administrative Transcript.
25
Significantly, there is no question that it is more limiting
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 15 of 22
12
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
than the residual functional capacity finding.
2
that plaintiff can sit for only two hours in an eight-hour
3
workday and stand and walk for one hour each.
4
that plaintiff would be absent more than -- well, it says
5
tree times a month, but I'm thinking three times a month is
6
what that should read, at page 295.
7
It opines
It also opines
There was a second opinion issued by Dr. Seybold on
8
June 9, 2017.
9
form that apparently came from an office in Broome County,
10
Office of Adult Career and Continuing Education Services,
11
Vocational Rehabilitation, and it does contain somewhat
12
arguably contradictory information, both internally and
13
certainly as opposed to the January 2017 opinion.
14
indicates that plaintiff is capable of working up to 25 to 40
15
hours per week but is temporarily unemployable for four to
16
six weeks.
17
summary, plaintiff has moderate spinal stenosis and he is
18
unable to stand, sit, walk or drive for extended periods of
19
time.
20
that plaintiff is limited to 50 percent walking, standing,
21
sitting, and other physical exertional actions.
22
It appears at page 317 and 318.
It was on a
It
On the second page it indicates in the verbal
That is quantified in a check-box grid to indicate
The Administrative Law Judge discussed
23
Dr. Seybold's opinions at pages 29 to 30 and gave some weight
24
to the second believing that it shows improvement.
25
Administrative Law Judge properly resolved the conflict
The
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 16 of 22
13
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
between the two, although, as I indicated, I'm not certain on
2
what Dr. Seybold based his finding, his apparent finding of
3
improvement, since he only saw the plaintiff four times and
4
all four of those were in 2016.
5
Administrative Law Judge also found he was persuaded by the
6
plaintiff's activities outside of work.
7
Dr. Seybold's opinions is somewhat lacking in that it does
8
not specifically lay out, as most Administrative Law Judge
9
decisions don't, the so-called Burgess factors that need to
Nonetheless, the
The discussion of
10
be evaluated, but the Second Circuit has noted that in
11
Estrella versus Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, from the Second
12
Circuit 2019, that a slavish recitation of the Burgess
13
factors, if it is lacking, it is not necessarily fatal if
14
upon review of the entirety of the decision it is clear to
15
the Court that the treating source rule was not violated, and
16
I make that finding in this case.
17
Dr. Jenouri, Dr. Gilbert Jenouri, examined the
18
plaintiff and issued an opinion on October 14, 2016.
That
19
appears at 261 to 266 of the Administrative Transcript.
20
found that plaintiff has moderate to marked restriction in
21
walking, standing, and sitting long periods, bending, stair
22
climbing, lifting, and carrying.
23
Judge gave great weight to Dr. Jenouri's opinions at page 28
24
to 29, except with regard to sitting, and he explained that
25
he rejected that limitation on sitting as inconsistent with
He
The Administrative Law
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 17 of 22
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
14
1
Dr. Seybold's description of plaintiff's improved condition
2
and with the claimant's narration of his pattern of work and
3
social activity.
4
considerations.
5
And these are, of course, proper
I note that the determination with regard to the
6
physical RFC is supported by not only the medical source
7
statement of Dr. Seybold and Dr. Jenouri, but also treatment
8
notes.
9
his lumbar area; that's at 282.
10
reported no pain; that's at 277.
11
reported no pain; that's at 351, and stated that he had begun
12
going to the gym.
13
that's at page 348.
14
that's at 337 to 338.
15
had experienced some pain but it had improved; that's at
16
page 341.
17
that's at page 329.
On December 7, 2016, plaintiff reported no pain in
18
On January 3, 2017, he also
On February 7, 2017, he
On March 27, 2017, he reported no pain;
On June 27, 2017, reported no pain;
On April 13, 2017, he noted that he
He also reported receiving relief from injections;
He stated to Dr. Jenouri at page 261 that pain was
19
caused by activities.
It was noted that he drove to deliver
20
papers six months after his alleged onset date for two hours
21
or more.
22
living, more so than most plaintiffs that we see, quite
23
honestly, and most involve sitting.
24
conservative treatment and was found not to be a candidate
25
for surgery.
He had a very robust set of activities of daily
The plaintiff underwent
I couldn't find any records of physical
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 18 of 22
15
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
therapy, although he was referred to physical therapy or aqua
2
therapy on October 9, 2017, by I believe PA Callahan, that's
3
at page 334.
4
physical therapy, which was helping; that's at page 324.
5
And on November 20, 2017, he reported going to
When it comes to sitting, by the way, I do note
6
that the Second Circuit has cautioned that, quote, "The
7
regulations do not mandate the presumption that all sedentary
8
jobs in the United States require the worker to sit without
9
moving for six hours, trapped like a seat-belted passenger in
10
the center seat on a transcontinental flight."
11
versus Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (Second Circuit 2004).
12
Halloran
So, in sum, I find that the physical aspects of the
13
residual functional capacity finding is supported by
14
substantial evidence.
15
Turning to the mental, the treating psychologist,
16
Dr. Michael Lister, issued an opinion on June 6, 2017.
It
17
appears at pages 319 to 321 of the Administrative Transcript.
18
He lists an Axis I diagnosis as panic disorder and
19
unspecified depressive disorder.
20
assessment of functioning, or GAF, score of 60, which under
21
the DSM-4, which of course has been superseded by the DSM-5
22
which no longer utilizes the GAF scale, nonetheless, it's at
23
the top of the 51 to 60 category which is defined as,
24
"moderate symptoms (e.g. flat affect and circumstantial
25
speech, occasional panic attacks) or moderate difficulty in
He assigns a global
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 19 of 22
16
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g. few
2
friends, conflicts with peers or co-workers)."
3
The opinion of Dr. Lister indicates only one rating
4
of poor in ability in the category of work and social
5
abilities, and that is to perform at a consistent pace
6
without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods.
7
It indicates at page 321 that plaintiff is ready to begin
8
employment and competitive employment, although it does check
9
the box for part time.
10
The Administrative Law Judge discussed Dr. Lister's
11
opinions at page 30.
12
treating source.
13
of Dr. Lister and the weight that it is given is adequately
14
explained on page 30 of the Administrative Law Judge's
15
decision and I don't find any violation of the treating
16
source rules.
17
have been met.
18
Dr. Lister clearly qualifies as a
But once again, I believe that the opinion
I believe that the requirements of Estrella
The mental condition of the plaintiff is also
19
addressed by Dr. Mary Ann Moore, who examined the plaintiff
20
on October 19, 2016.
21
of the Administrative Transcript.
22
statement she finds some limitations, including significantly
23
moderate limitations in regard to appropriately dealing with
24
stress, relating adequately with others, making appropriate
25
work decisions, and maintaining a regular work schedule.
Her opinions appear at page 368 to 373
In her medical source
The
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 20 of 22
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
17
1
opinion is given great weight, but the limitation on schedule
2
is rejected and explained as follows, "The moderate
3
limitations Dr. Moore describes concerning maintaining a
4
regular work schedule are not well supported in light of the
5
claimant's hearing testimony about his varied daily
6
activities and continuing job search, and consequently are
7
not adopted."
8
9
The opinion of Dr. S. Juriga from November 1, 2016
was also considered and given some weight at page 30 of the
10
Administrative Transcript.
11
included in Exhibit 1A, which appears at 71 through 81 of the
12
Administrative Transcript.
13
that plaintiff does not have any limitations in the domains
14
of restriction of activities of daily living, difficulties in
15
maintaining social functioning, and repeated episodes of
16
decompensation, each of extended duration, and finds only
17
mild difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence
18
or pace.
19
Dr. Juriga's opinions are
In his opinion, Dr. Juriga finds
Of course, plaintiff's RFC as found by the
20
Administrative Law Judge does not mirror exactly any one of
21
the varied medical opinions in the record, but of course
22
there is no requirement that it do so.
23
that the analysis of the Administrative Law Judge was proper
24
and the portions of the medical opinions that were not
25
adopted were adequately explained.
In this case, I find
I was persuaded that this
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 21 of 22
18
Decision - 19-cv-1355 - 12/23/2020
1
is a case very similar in that regard to Medina versus
2
Commissioner of Social Security, 2020 WL 7418981.
3
opinion, a summary order issued by the Second Circuit on
4
December 18, 2020.
5
It was an
The step five argument, of course, that was made by
6
the plaintiff is dependent on a finding that the residual
7
functional capacity determination was not supported by
8
substantial evidence, and I found that it was supported by
9
substantial evidence.
The hypothetical posed to the
10
vocational expert mirrored the RFC finding.
11
conclude that the Commissioner has carried his burden at step
12
five and that the resulting determination was proper and
13
supported by substantial evidence.
14
I, therefore,
I will, therefore, grant judgment on the pleadings
15
to the defendant and order dismissal of plaintiff's
16
complaint.
17
And leave you with a wish that you have a happy,
18
healthy holiday season and New Year.
19
brings us back to normal.
20
21
22
23
24
25
*
Let's pray that 2021
Thank you.
*
*
Case 3:19-cv-01355-DEP Document 17 Filed 01/08/21 Page 22 of 22
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?