Sampson v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
12
ORDER: Defendant' motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The Acting 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. 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 9/27/2018. (khr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BERTHA LYNETTE S.
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No.
5:18-CV-0045 (DEP)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR PLAINTIFF:
DOLSON LAW OFFICE
126 North Salina Street
Suite 3B
Syracuse, NY 13202
STEVEN R. DOLSON, ESQ.
FOR DEFENDANT:
HON. GRANT C. JAQUITH
United States Attorney
P.O. Box 7198
100 S. Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261-7198
SERGEI ADEN, ESQ.,
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
DAVID E. PEEBLES
CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER
Currently pending before the court in this action, in which plaintiff
seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative determination by the
Acting Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 405(g),
1383(c)(3), are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.1 Oral
argument was heard in connection with those motions on September 20,
2018, 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 Acting
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
2)
The Acting 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:
September 27, 2018
Syracuse, NY
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------x
BERTHA S,
Plaintiff,
-v-
5:18-CV-45
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------x
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE DAVID E. PEEBLES
September 20, 2018
100 South Clinton Street, Syracuse, New York
For the Plaintiff:
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DOLSON
126 North Salina Street
Suite 3B
Syracuse, New York 13202
BY: STEVEN R. DOLSON, ESQ.
For the Defendant:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
26 Federal Plaza
Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
BY: SERGEI ADEN, ESQ.
Hannah F. Cavanaugh
Official United States Court Reporter
100 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, New York 13261-7367
(315) 234-8545
2
Bertha S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
1
2
(In chambers, counsel present by telephone.
noted:
Time
10:18 a.m.)
3
THE COURT:
The plaintiff in this action has
4
commenced this case to challenge a determination by the Acting
5
Commissioner pursuant to 42, United States Code, Sections 405(g)
6
and 1383(c)(3).
7
The background is as follows:
The plaintiff was born
8
in May of 1968 and is currently 50 years old.
She was 48 years
9
old at the time of the hearing and 46 when her application for
10
benefits was made.
She lives in a home in Syracuse with her
11
mother.
12
and weighs 160 pounds, although at page -- that's at page 186
13
and 54.
Plaintiff has completed 12th grade.
14
She stands 5'2"
Plaintiff smokes six cigarettes per day.
She drinks
15
between three beers, that's at page 48, and four beers, at 316,
16
a day, and there's indication that those beers are actually
17
25-ounce beers.
18
treating source, Dr. Anumba, whether she intended to stop
19
drinking, she replied no with a smile.
20
Parenthetically, it was noted in that treatment note that she
21
had just returned from a vacation to Myrtle Beach, South
22
Carolina.
23
That's at page 462 and 316.
When asked by her
That's at page 527.
Plaintiff last worked on May 1, 2013.
That's at page
24
186.
She was laid off from that position, which was a seasonal
25
one.
Her past relevant work includes housekeeping at a motel, a
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, Official Court Reporter
(315) 234-8545
3
Bertha S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
1
machine operator, a sales representative, a secretary, and a
2
server/waitress.
3
Plaintiff suffers from several conditions.
In
4
support of her application for benefits at pages 54 and 186, she
5
claimed pancreatitis, arthritis in both legs, numbness of her
6
feet, high blood pressure, lower back pain, and insomnia.
7
also suffers from neuropathy and a history of alcohol abuse.
8
Plaintiff has treated with Dr. Myles Howard at Syracuse
9
Community Health Center.
She
She has undergone physical therapy at
10
both Upstate Hospital and Crouse Hospital here in Syracuse, New
11
York.
12
not undergone any treatment.
13
a result of the loss of a brother, a father, and three
14
boyfriends.
15
2016 and sees Dr. Anumba every three months.
16
Plaintiff also claims to suffer from depression, but has
That seems to stem from stress as
Plaintiff also treats with Dr. Emeka Anumba since
Medically, plaintiff has been prescribed Naproxen for
17
pain, Zolpidem or Ambien for sleep, folic acid, Metoprolol for
18
blood pressure, and Vitamin B1.
19
Plaintiff ambulates with the use of a cane prescribed by Dr.
20
Howard in July of 2015.
21
That's at 189 and 315.
That's at page 240.
Plaintiff's daily activities include -- she does not
22
do laundry.
23
help, she needs help in the shower, she has no hobbies, and she
24
sits on her porch.
25
She does shop, she does dishes, she can clean with
That's at page 316.
Procedurally, plaintiff applied for Supplemental
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, Official Court Reporter
(315) 234-8545
Bertha S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
1
Social Security Income payments on April 17, 2014, alleging an
2
onset date of April 1, 2010.
3
to the date of the application.
4
Administrative Law Judge Roxanne Fuller on October 7, 2016, to
5
address plaintiff's application.
6
on January 5, 2017, finding that plaintiff was not disabled at
7
the relevant times and, therefore, ineligible for SSI payments.
8
That became a final determination of the agency on December 8,
9
4
2017, when the Social Security Administration Appeals Council
10
11
That onset date was later amended
A hearing was conducted by
ALJ Fuller issued a decision
denied plaintiff's request for a review.
In her decision, ALJ Fuller applied the familiar
12
five-step test for determining disability.
13
protocol for determining disability in cases where there is
14
alcohol or substance abuse present.
15
16
17
She also applied the
At step one, she concluded plaintiff had not engaged
in substantial gainful activity since April 17, 2014.
At step two, ALJ Fuller concluded that plaintiff
18
suffers from severe conditions or impairments, including acute
19
alcohol pancreatitis, meralgia paresthetica, peripheral
20
neuropathy, and substance abuse.
21
At step three, the Administrative Law Judge concluded
22
plaintiff's conditions did not meet or medically equal any of
23
the listed presumptively disabling conditions considering, among
24
others, listings 12.04 and 12.06.
25
what plaintiff's residual functional capacity, or RFC, would be
The ALJ went on to determine
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, Official Court Reporter
(315) 234-8545
5
Bertha S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
1
with the presence of her alcohol use and concluded that she
2
retains the ability to perform sedentary work, except she can
3
only occasionally climb ramps or stairs, never climb ladders,
4
ropes, or scaffolds, occasionally balance, stoop, crouch, kneel,
5
and crawl, occasional exposure to moving mechanical parts, only
6
occasionally operate a motor vehicle, occasionally be exposed to
7
unprotected heights, and must use a cane to ambulate.
8
the claimant may only perform simple routine repetitive tasks.
9
The Administrative Law Judge then concluded that plaintiff had
Finally,
10
not engaged in any past relevant work within the meaning of the
11
Commissioner's regulations.
12
At step five, after noting that if the grid rules or
13
medical vocational rules and the regulations were applied, Rule
14
201.18 would direct a finding of no disability.
15
testimony of a vocational expert, however, with all of
16
plaintiff's impairments, including the substance abuse disorder,
17
plaintiff cannot perform any work available in the national
18
economy.
19
Based on the
The Administrative Law Judge then proceeded to
20
consider what plaintiff's residual functional capacity would be
21
without the use of alcohol and concluded that she would have the
22
same residual functional capacity with the exception of no cane
23
requirement to ambulate.
24
25
At step four, again, the Administrative Law Judge
concluded plaintiff did not have any past relevant work.
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, Official Court Reporter
(315) 234-8545
6
Bertha S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
1
At step five, relying on the testimony of a
2
vocational expert, the Administrative Law Judge concluded that
3
if the alcohol use stopped, plaintiff could perform as an order
4
clerk, a final assembler, and a callout operator, all of those
5
positions being sedentary in terms of exertional requirements
6
and with an SVP of two.
7
As you know, my role is limited and the review the
8
Court must make is extremely deferential.
9
whether correct legal principles were applied, which appear to
10
be the case in this instance, and whether the determination of
11
the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence.
12
I must determine
The focus of plaintiff's argument is upon her
13
physical limitations.
14
burden through the residual functional capacity and the step
15
four step of the analysis to demonstrate the existence of
16
limiting conditions that would result in a finding of
17
disability.
18
As a backdrop, it is the plaintiff's
Let me take reaching first.
As was discussed, there
19
does not appear to be any diagnosed condition that would
20
logically preclude the plaintiff's ability to reach.
21
Administrative Law Judge therefore properly rejected Dr.
22
Lorensen's finding of a marked restriction on reaching.
23
simply no explanation for that other than her finding of a
24
limitation when she made musculoskeletal examination.
25
Anumba, the treating source two years after Dr. Lorensen's
The
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, Official Court Reporter
(315) 234-8545
There's
But Dr.
7
Bertha S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
1
report, in a medical statement indicated that plaintiff could
2
frequently use her arms to reach.
3
I find that that determination is therefore supported by
4
substantial evidence and that it was proper to rely on the
5
treating source in that regard.
6
That's at page 541 and 542.
Obviously, the more difficult issue is the substance
7
abuse analysis.
At pages 23 to 27, the Administrative Law Judge
8
very carefully and painstakingly evaluated the record regarding
9
alcohol abuse and its effects.
As the Commissioner argued,
10
ostensibly you could find that even without the alcohol use,
11
plaintiff would have the ability to perform sedentary work, but
12
it is noted that even under the Administrative Law Judge's
13
decision, if you take away the alcohol abuse she still limited
14
the plaintiff to sedentary work, which is extremely restrictive.
15
I note that there was a CT scan of plaintiff's head,
16
which was essentially normal.
17
therapist Kaitlin Kelly, at 369, indicated that plaintiff's
18
peripheral neuropathy was secondary to her chemical intake.
19
similar statement was made by Dr. Howard, the treating source,
20
in April of 2014, that's at page 334, when he indicated
21
peripheral neuropathy is secondary to ETOH, which is alcohol
22
abuse/dependence, twice on that page.
23
That's at page 351.
Physical
A
At page 261, Dr. O'Donnell indicated alcohol abuse
24
potentially led to peripheral neuropathy and cerebellar ataxia.
25
The Crouse Physical Therapy notes at page 514 indicate meralgia
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, Official Court Reporter
(315) 234-8545
Bertha S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
1
paresthetica is alcohol induced.
2
8
suggests that the paresthetica is also related to alcohol.
3
And at 527, Dr. Anumba
So it's true, as plaintiff argues, that SSR 96-9p
4
suggests that if there is a need for use of a cane to balance
5
due to neurological defects or impairments, there could be
6
erosion of the job base on which either the grids or the
7
vocational expert's testimony is based.
8
9
I note that Dr. Lorensen indicated, however, that
plaintiff did not use an assistive device and found only a
10
moderate limitation in the ability to ambulate and stand.
11
That's at page 318.
12
plaintiff does not need a cane.
13
indicated that plaintiff was able to walk some without a cane.
14
That's at 510.
15
for two hours and did not note any limitation in that regard,
16
that's at page 541, although did note that plaintiff walks with
17
a cane.
18
There's an indication at page 425 that
Physical Therapist Page
Dr. Anumba indicated that plaintiff can stand
There is difficulty in walking and standing and
19
balancing, clearly plaintiff reported at that 503, 506, and 511,
20
but although there is contrary evidence -- and the contrary
21
evidence could also be substantial evidence, as you know, as
22
long as substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law
23
Judge's determination, that is sufficient, and I find that it
24
does in this regard.
25
I do not find that there is any gap in the record.
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, Official Court Reporter
(315) 234-8545
9
Bertha S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
1
It was plaintiff's burden to demonstrate that her alcohol abuse
2
was not material to her limitations and work functions and the
3
ALJ clearly has the discretion to seek more evidence.
4
case, there was evidence in the record that she properly relied
5
on to make her determination of what plaintiff could do without
6
alcohol intake.
7
was represented at the hearing, noted -- the representative
8
noted at page 481 that the representative's review of the record
9
was complete.
10
In this
And I note in that regard that plaintiff, who
So on that basis, I am going to award judgment on the
11
pleadings to the defendant, affirm the Commissioner's
12
determination, and dismiss plaintiff's complaint.
13
interesting case and I appreciate both of your written and oral
14
presentations.
It was a very
I hope you have a wonderful day.
15
MR. DOLSON:
16
MR. ADEN:
17
(Time noted:
Thank you, Judge.
Thank you, your Honor.
10:33 a.m.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, Official Court Reporter
(315) 234-8545
Bertha S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
10
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
3
4
5
I, HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, Official Court Reporter, in and
6
for the United States District Court for the Northern District
7
of New York, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to Section 753,
8
Title 28, United States Code, that the foregoing is a true and
9
correct transcript of the stenographically reported proceedings
10
held in the above-entitled matter and that the transcript page
11
format is in conformance with the regulations of the Judicial
12
Conference of the United States.
13
14
Dated this 26th day of September, 2018.
15
16
X___________________________
17
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH
18
Official U.S. Court Reporter
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HANNAH F. CAVANAUGH, Official Court Reporter
(315) 234-8545
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?