Williamson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

ORDER granting plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Vacating the Commissioner's determination and remanding the matter to the Commissioner. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 9/12/18. (sfp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

GARY L. W.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.
6:17-CV-1183 (DEP)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

FOR PLAINTIFF:
DOLSON LAW OFFICE
124 North Salina Street
Suite 3B
Syracuse, NY 13202

STEVEN R. DOLSON, ESQ.
GREGORY P. FAIR, ESQ.

FOR DEFENDANT:
HON. GRANT C. JAQUITH
U.S. Attorney for the
Northern District of New York
P.O. Box 7198
100 S. Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261-7198
DAVID E. PEEBLES
CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

LUCY WEILBRENNER, ESQ.
LORIE E. LUPKIN, ESQ.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys

ORDER
Currently pending before the court in this action, in which plaintiff
seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative determination by the
Acting Commissioner, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), are cross-motions for
judgment on the pleadings. 1 Oral argument was conducted in connection
with those motions on September 11, 2018, during a telephone conference
held 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 did not result from the application
of proper legal principles and is not 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,
a transcript of which is attached and incorporated herein by reference, it is
hereby
ORDERED, as follows:
(1)

Plaintiff=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 plaintiff was not

disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits under the
Social Security Act, is VACATED.
(3)

The matter is hereby REMANDED to the Acting Commissioner,

without a directed finding of disability, for further proceedings consistent with
this determination.
(4)

The clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon

this determination, remanding the matter to the Acting Commissioner
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) and closing this case.

Dated:

September 12, 2018
Syracuse, NY

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------x
GARY L. W.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

6:17-CV-1183

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------x
Transcript of a Decision held during a
Telephone Conference on September 11, 2018, at the
James Hanley Federal Building, 100 South Clinton
Street, Syracuse, New York, the HONORABLE DAVID E.
PEEBLES, United States Magistrate Judge, Presiding.
A P P E A R A N C E S
(By Telephone)
For Plaintiff:

LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DOLSON
Attorneys at Law
126 N. Salina Street, Suite 3B
Syracuse, New York 13202
BY: GREGORY P. FAIR, ESQ.

For Defendant:

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
625 JFK Building
15 New Sudbury Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
BY: LUCY WEILBRENNER, ESQ.

Jodi L. Hibbard, RPR, CSR, CRR
Official United States Court Reporter
100 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, New York 13261-7367
[phone]

10
(In Chambers, Counsel present by telephone.)

1

THE COURT:

2

So I have before me a request for

3

judicial review of an adverse determination by the Acting

4

Commissioner pursuant to 42 United States Code Section

5

405(g).
The background is as follows:

6

The plaintiff was

7

born in September of 1962 and is currently 56 years of age.

8

He was 53 years old at the time of the administrative hearing

9

in this matter, and 51 at the time of his alleged disability

10

onset.

Plaintiff lives with his wife in Ava, New York.

He

11

is 5 foot 10 inches in height and weighs 297 pounds and has

12

been diagnosed as suffering from obesity.

13

completed the 11th grade but -- and has not achieved a GED.

14

He has a driver's license and drives.

15

as a mechanic since the 1980s in a very physical capacity,

16

often lifting up to 150 pounds.

Plaintiff

Plaintiff has worked

In terms of health, plaintiff's primary complaint

17
18

is fatigue, he has heart issues.

In November of 2009, he

19

suffered a myocardial infarction and underwent a stent and

20

catheterization -- a stent, and he underwent catheterization

21

later in August of 2013 when he was hospitalized with chest

22

pain.

23

chest pain, that's 10F.

24

Plaintiff suffers from sleep apnea and has been prescribed a

25

CPAP machine, although he testified he does not regularly use

He was hospitalized again in October of 2015 with
The August 2013 is reported at 11F.

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
[phone]

11
1

it.

Plaintiff also suffers from Meniere's disease, he was

2

diagnosed in 2013.

3

he has not suffered any hearing loss.

It causes intermittent dizzy spells but

Plaintiff was treating with the Boonville Family

4
5

Care practice but switched to Slocum-Dickson in October 2015

6

where he is now treated by Dr. George Tomy.

7

In terms of medication, plaintiff has been

8

prescribed Toprol for the heart, Simvastatin for cholesterol,

9

Prilosec for his stomach, aspirin -- baby aspirin, and

10

atorvastatin which is also for cholesterol.

11

he's also been in the past prescribed metoprolol and has

12

nitrogen pills which he uses as needed.
Plaintiff cooks.

13

For his heart

The record is somewhat unclear as

14

to whether he cleans.

In 4F he reported that he does; at the

15

hearing he stated he does not.

16

care of daily hygiene, watches television, and uses the

17

computer.

He does laundry, shops, takes

The plaintiff applied for Title II Disability

18
19

Insurance benefits on March 19, 2014.

20

filed under Title XVI for Supplemental Security Income

21

payments.

22

onset date was later amended to March 19, 2014.

23

He also protectively

He alleged an onset date of January 1, 2013.

That

The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law

24

Judge Barry Ryan on April 28, 2016.

The administrative law

25

judge issued a decision subsequently on June 16, 2016 that

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
[phone]

12
1

was unfavorable to the plaintiff.

2

Administration Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for

3

review on August 31, 2017, making the administrative law

4

judge's opinion a final determination of the agency.
In his decision, ALJ Ryan applied the familiar

5
6

The Social Security

five-step sequential test for determining disability.

7

At step one he concluded that plaintiff had not

8

engaged in substantial gainful activity since the amended

9

onset date of March 19, 2014.

10

He did note that plaintiff's

last date of insured status was December 31, 2017.
At step two, the administrative law judge concluded

11
12

that plaintiff suffers from severe impairments within the

13

meaning of the regulations, including coronary artery disease

14

status post myocardial infarction, obesity, and sleep apnea.

15

He rejected the other claimed impairments, including

16

Meniere's disease, as not significantly limiting plaintiff's

17

ability to perform work functions.
At step three, plaintiff, according to the ALJ, did

18
19

not -- his condition did not meet or medically equal any of

20

the listed presumptively disabling conditions set forth in

21

the regulations, specifically looking at Listing 3.10

22

relating to sleep apnea, 4.04 relating to ischemic heart

23

disease.

24

the record, that plaintiff retains the residual functional

25

capacity to perform a full range of light work as defined in

He then concluded, after reviewing the evidence in

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
[phone]

13
1

the regulations.

As you know, that includes lifting no more

2

than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of

3

objects weighing up to 10 pounds.

4

walking or standing, and when it involves sitting, most of

5

the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg

6

controls.

7

to perform his past relevant work based upon the exertional

8

requirement associated with it.

It requires a good deal of

The ALJ then concluded that plaintiff was unable

At step five, applying the Medical Vocational

9
10

Guidelines or Grids, and specifically Rule 202.11, he

11

concluded that plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant

12

times, and therefore ineligible for the benefits requested.
As you know, my task is limited, I apply an

13
14

extremely deferential standard of review and determine

15

whether correct medical -- legal, I'm sorry, principles were

16

applied and the determination is supported by substantial

17

evidence.

18

The primary argument here relates to the

19

administrative law judge's analysis of plaintiff's reported

20

symptomology, which includes weakness, fatigue, and

21

dizziness.

22

a two-step process for determining credibility.

23

Administrative Law Judge Ryan correctly cited at page 22 of

24

the administrative transcript the test.

25

determining whether he found at step one that the conditions

20 CFR Section 404.1529 and SSR 16-03p prescribe

The problem here is

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
[phone]

14
1

that he found under the modest step two test were severe,

2

rose to a level that could reasonably be expected to produce

3

the reported symptomology, or instead, he went to step two

4

and concluded, after analyzing the intensity, persistence,

5

and limiting effects of the symptomology that plaintiff's

6

reports were not fully credible.

7

In my view, I could guess at what the analysis was

8

but it would simply be a guess, and I don't think that that's

9

what the law intended.

10

I agree with plaintiff's counsel that this case

11

looks to fall within the four corners of Meadors v. Astrue,

12

370 Fed.Appx. 179 from the Second Circuit, 2010; and also

13

Martone v. Apfel, 70 F.Supp.2d 145, a 1999 decision from this

14

court, specifically Judge Hurd.

15

In my view, Judge Ryan, who is a seasoned

16

administrative law judge, I have a great deal of respect for

17

him, simply didn't go through the steps required to make the

18

analysis under SSR 16-03p such that it would permit a

19

meaningful review by the court.

20

me that this plaintiff can carry his burden of demonstrating

21

limiting conditions that would rise to a level to support a

22

finding of disability, but I have no choice but to grant

23

judgment on the pleadings to the plaintiff and remand the

24

matter, without a directed finding, for a better analysis of

25

the plaintiff's symptoms.

So it's not at all clear to

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
[phone]

15
1
2

Thank you both for excellent presentations, and
hope you have a good afternoon.

3

MR. FAIR:

4

MS. WEILBRENNER:

5

Thanks, Judge, you, too.
You too, thank you.

(Proceedings Adjourned, 10:22 a.m.)

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
[phone]

1

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER

2
3
4

I, JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR, Federal

5

Official Realtime Court Reporter, in and for the

6

United States District Court for the Northern

7

District of New York, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that

8

pursuant to Section 753, Title 28, United States

9

Code, that the foregoing is a true and correct

10

transcript of the stenographically reported

11

proceedings held in the above-entitled matter and

12

that the transcript page format is in conformance

13

with the regulations of the Judicial Conference of

14

the United States.

15
16

Dated this 11th day of September, 2018.

17
18
19

/S/ JODI L. HIBBARD

20

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

21
22
23
24
25

JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
[phone]