Medick v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 14

ORDER Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 11 ) is DENIED. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 12 ) is GRANTED. The Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric on 8/2/2022. (egr)

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
GOLDIE M.,
Plaintiff,
v.

5:21-CV-0794
(ML)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DOLSON
Counsel for the Plaintiff
126 North Salina Street, Suite 3B
Syracuse, New York 13202

STEVEN R. DOLSON, ESQ.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Counsel for the Defendant
J.F.K. Federal Building, Room 625
15 New Sudbury Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02203

MICHAEL L. HENRY, ESQ.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

MIROSLAV LOVRIC, United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
Currently pending before the Court in this action, in which Plaintiff seeks judicial review
of an adverse administrative determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.1 Oral argument was

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.
1

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 13

heard in connection with those motions on July 28, 2022, 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 was supported by substantial evidence, providing further detail regarding my
reasoning and addressing the specific issues raised by 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
ORDERED as follows:
1)

Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 11) is DENIED.

2)

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 12) is GRANTED.

3)

The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits is

AFFIRMED.
4)

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.

5)

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon this

determination, DISMISSING Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety and closing this case.
Dated: August 2, 2022
Binghamton, New York
____________________________________
Miroslav Lovric
United States Magistrate Judge
Northern District of New York

2

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 3 of 13
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
M
vs.

5:21-CV-0794

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

_____________________________________

DECISION AND ORDER

July 28, 2022

The HONORABLE MIROSLAV LOVRIC,
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JUDGE

A P P E A R A N C E S
For Plaintiff:

STEVEN DOLSON, ESQ.

For Defendant:

MICHAEL HENRY, ESQ.
Ruth I. Lynch, RPR, RMR, NYSRCR
Official United States Court Reporter
Binghamton, New York 13901

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 4 of 13
2
1

THE COURT:

Let me begin by indicating first that

2

the plaintiff has commenced this proceeding pursuant to

3

42 U.S. Code Section 405(g) to challenge the adverse

4

determination by the Commissioner of Social Security finding

5

that she was not disabled at the relevant times and

6

therefore ineligible for the benefits that she sought.

7

By way of background, the Court states as follows:

8

Plaintiff was born in 1980.

9
10

years old.

She was approximately 30 years old at the

alleged onset of her disability on January 13th of 2011.

11
12

She is currently 42

Plaintiff stands approximately 5 feet 7 inches and
weighs approximately 370 pounds.

13

Plaintiff has completed high school, a vocational

14

training program for nursing, is a licensed practical nurse,

15

that being an LPN, and completed a bachelor's degree in

16

health services management in August 2019.

17

Plaintiff has past work experience as an LPN.

18

Procedurally in this case the Court states as

19

follows:

20

Plaintiff applied for Title II and Title XVI

21

benefits on March 19 of 2013 alleging an onset date of

22

January 13th of 2011.

23

Administrative Law Judge Joseph L. Brinkley

24

conducted a hearing on August 19, 2014, to address

25

plaintiff's application for benefits.

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 5 of 13
3
1
2

ALJ Brinkley issued an unfavorable decision on
October 21 of 2014.

3

The Social Security Administration Appeals Council

4

denied plaintiff's application for review on March 2nd of

5

2016.

6

Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. District Court for

7

the Northern District of New York, and United States

8

Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel remanded the matter on

9

March 7th of 2017.

Judge Hummel directed the ALJ to

10

recontact Dr. Neupane, reconsider plaintiff's activities of

11

daily living, and explicitly state the reliance, if any,

12

placed on the single decision-maker's opinion.

13

While the action was pending before Judge Hummel,

14

on April 18th, 2016, plaintiff filed a subsequent Title XVI

15

application.

16

a remand order and directed the ALJ to consolidate

17

plaintiff's claims.

18

On June 20th, 2017, the Appeals Council issued

A second hearing was held on March 7th of 2018

19

before ALJ Elizabeth W. Koennecke.

20

unfavorable decision on April 27th, 2018.

21

Council remanded back to ALJ Koennecke for further

22

evaluation on February 25th, 2019.

23

ALJ Koennecke issued an
The Appeals

A third hearing was held September 30th, 2019,

24

before ALJ Koennecke.

ALJ Koennecke issued an unfavorable

25

decision on October 18th, 2019.

That became a final

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 6 of 13
4
1

determination of the agency on June 10th, 2021, when the

2

Social Security Administration Appeals Council denied

3

plaintiff's application for review.

4
5
6

This action was commenced on July 13th of 2021 and
it is timely.
In her October 18, 2019 decision, ALJ Koennecke

7

applied the familiar five-step test for determining

8

disability.

9

At step one, she concluded that plaintiff had not

10

engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 13 of

11

2011, the alleged onset date.

12

At step two, she concluded that plaintiff suffers

13

from severe impairments that impose more than minimal

14

limitations on her ability to perform basic work activities.

15

Specifically the ALJ noted and found morbid obesity;

16

systemic lupus erythematosus; fibromyalgia; diabetes

17

mellitus; hypertension; diabetic neuropathy;

18

supraventricular tachycardia; headaches; knee impairment;

19

and neck impairment status post fusion surgery.

20

At step three, ALJ Koennecke concluded that

21

plaintiff's conditions do not meet or medically equal any of

22

the listed presumptively disabling conditions set forth in

23

the commissioner's regulations, focusing on listing 1.02

24

relating to major dysfunction of a joint, such as the knee;

25

1.04 focusing on disorders of the spine; and section 9.0

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 7 of 13
5
1

relating and focusing as to diabetes; section 11.14 as to

2

diabetic neuropathy; section 4.05, that is recurrent

3

arrhythmias; section 4.00 relating to hypertension and

4

tachycardia; and section 14.02 relating to lupus.

5

the ALJ noted that although there are no listings for

6

obesity, headaches, and fibromyalgia, no independent medical

7

expert has advised that plaintiff's impairments medically

8

equal the requirement of the listings and plaintiff's

9

obesity was considered in determining whether plaintiff's

Moreover,

10

other impairments meet or medically equal a listing in

11

accordance with SSR19-2p.

12

The ALJ next determined that plaintiff retains the

13

residual functional capacity to perform the full range of

14

sedentary work.

15

At step four, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff

16

could not perform her past relevant work as a licensed

17

practical nurse or office nurse.

18

At step five, the ALJ concluded that based on an

19

RFC for the full range of sedentary work, considering

20

plaintiff's age, education, and work experience, a finding

21

of not disabled is directed by Medical-Vocational

22

Rule 201.28.

23

the testimony of the vocational expert, the following three

24

jobs exist in significant numbers in the national economy

25

plaintiff can perform.

In addition, the ALJ concluded that based on

First -- those three categories are,

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 8 of 13
6
1

first, document preparer; second, order clerk food/beverage;

2

and, third, charge account clerk.

3

As a result, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff has

4

not been under a disability since January 13th of 2011

5

through the date of the decision.

6

Now, as the parties know, the Court's functional

7

role in this case is limited and extremely deferential.

I

8

must determine whether correct legal principles were applied

9

and whether the determination is supported by substantial

10

evidence, defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable

11

mind would find sufficient to support a conclusion.

12

Second Circuit noted in Brault V. Social Security

13

Administration Commissioner, that's found at 683 F.3d 443, a

14

2012 case, the Second Circuit noted therein the standard is

15

demanding, more so than the clearly erroneous standard.

16

Court noted in Brault that once there is a finding of fact,

17

that fact can be rejected only if a reasonable fact-finder

18

would have to conclude otherwise.

19

As the

Now, in this case the plaintiff raises two

20

contentions.

21

failing to properly apply the treating physician rule and

22

substituting her own opinion over that of treating

23

physicians Dr. Satterly and Dr. Neupane.

24
25

The

First, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by

Second, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by
failing to conduct a function-by-function analysis before

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 9 of 13
7
1

stating an RFC finding as the full range of sedentary work

2

with no exertional limitations.

3

The Court's analysis is as follows:

4

First, I find that, for the reasons stated in

5

defendant's brief, the ALJ properly weighed the opinions of

6

Dr. Satterly and Dr. Neupane.

7

With respect to the opinion of Dr. Satterly, as

8

defendant thoroughly outlined, the ALJ supportably afforded

9

little evidentiary weight because, one, it was not supported

10

by clinical examination findings, which reflected that

11

plaintiff's gait was normal and she ambulated well.

12

Second, Dr. Satterly acknowledged that Dr. Neupane

13

was better qualified to answer questions regarding

14

limitations caused by plaintiff's fibromyalgia and lupus.

15

Third, Dr. Satterly completed the report with

16

plaintiff based off plaintiff's subjective reporting despite

17

the fact that Dr. Satterly's physical examination findings

18

were normal.

19

Moreover, as defendant thoroughly sets forth, the

20

ALJ Koennecke's analysis regarding the consistency of

21

Dr. Satterly's opinion compared to the rest of the record,

22

including Dr. Satterly's own physical examination findings,

23

was similar to the analysis of ALJ Brinkley.

24

found that ALJ Brinkley had properly applied this portion of

25

the treating physician rule insofar as he compared Dr.

Judge Hummel

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 10 of 13
8
1

Satterly's opinion with other medical evidence in the

2

record.

3

at 2017 West Law 886944 at pages 8 through 9, and that's

4

Northern District New York March 16, 2017 Magistrate Judge

5

Hummel opinion.

6

See Medick V. Colvin, 16-CV-0341, that can be found

Further, as Judge Hummel eloquently set forth, the

7

ALJ's failure to explicitly consider the Burgess factors is

8

not, without more, reversible error.

9

Law 886944 at page 5.

10

See Medick, 2017 West

The ALJ referred to Dr. Satterly as, quote, the

11

claimant's provider, end of quote.

12

reference to Dr. Satterly's statement that Dr. Neupane,

13

plaintiff's treating rheumatologist, was better qualified to

14

answer questions regarding the limitations due to the

15

claimant's fibromyalgia and lupus indicates that the ALJ

16

considered that Dr. Satterly was plaintiff's primary care

17

physician who lacked any specialized knowledge of her lupus

18

and fibromyalgia.

19

In addition, the ALJ's

The ALJ cited Dr. Satterly's treatment records

20

from 2008 through 2016 demonstrating that the ALJ was aware

21

of the length of the treating relationship.

22
23
24
25

Thus, it is clear to the Court that the ALJ
considered the Burgess factors.
To the extent that plaintiff appears to ask this
court to reweigh the evidence, the Court, this Court,

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 11 of 13
9
1

declines to do so.

2

some examinations plaintiff had 18 out of 18 tender points;

3

during some examinations plaintiff had tenderness in her

4

shoulders, elbows, knees, upper, middle, and lower back; and

5

during some examinations she had no tenderness.

6

number 10 attachment 8 at page 445.

7

supportably considered both the conflicting evidence, and

8

plaintiff has not identified any error with the ALJ's

9

evaluation of that evidence.

10

The ALJ explicitly stated that during

See docket

Thus, the ALJ

With respect to the opinion of Dr. Neupane that

11

plaintiff's symptoms frequently interfere with her attention

12

and concentration, as defendant thoroughly outlined, the ALJ

13

supportably assigned no weight because it is not supported

14

by Dr. Neupane's treatment notes.

15

attachment 8 at 27 and at transcript page 451.

16

previously noted, plaintiff completed a bachelor's degree in

17

2019.

18

tutored other students, which suggests that she has no

19

significant limitations in concentration.

20

10 attachment 8 at 18, and that's transcript page 442.

21

See docket number 10
Further, as

While completing her bachelor's degree, plaintiff

See docket number

The Court also notes that although the agency was

22

directed to recontact Dr. Neupane for a more comprehensive

23

functional capacity evaluation, Dr. Neupane refused to

24

provide one.

25

ALJ and the Court is incomplete.

Thus, the opinion of Dr. Neupane before the

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 12 of 13
10
1

To the extent that plaintiff argues that the ALJ

2

erred by basing the RFC on her own lay opinion rather than

3

record medical evidence, I find that argument unpersuasive

4

here.

5

medical, and the ALJ properly considered medical and other

6

evidence in the record to reach an RFC determination.

7

An RFC finding is administrative in nature, not

Second, I find that the ALJ was not required to

8

conduct a more detailed function-by-function analysis before

9

making the RFC determination.

As plaintiff acknowledges in

10

her brief, it is axiomatic in the Second Circuit that the

11

failure to provide a function-by-function analysis is not a

12

per se ground for remand.

13

to tether their RFC findings to specific medical opinions.

14

The burden at step four lies with plaintiff, and the ALJ

15

explained her reasons for omitting greater limitations.

16

For all these reasons and as a result of this

Moreover, ALJs are not required

17

analysis, the Court therefore finds and concludes

18

plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

19

Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.

20

Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, and the commissioner's

21

decision denying plaintiff's benefits is affirmed.

22
23
24
25

That constitutes the Court's decision.
- - - - -

Case 5:21-cv-00794-ML Document 14 Filed 08/02/22 Page 13 of 13

1

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER

2
3
4

I, RUTH I. LYNCH, RPR, RMR, NYS Realtime Certified

5

Reporter, Federal Official Court Reporter, in and for the

6

United States District Court for the Northern District of

7

New York, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to Section 753,

8

Title 28, United States Code, that the foregoing is a true

9

and correct transcript of the stenographically reported

10

proceedings held in the above-entitled matter and that the

11

transcript page format is in conformance with the

12

regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

/s/ Ruth I. Lynch
RUTH I. LYNCH, RPR, RMR, NYSRCR
Official U.S. Court Reporter