Lawrence v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. # 9 & 13 is DENIED; Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. # 12 is GRANTED; the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff Social Security benefits is AFFIRMED; and Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. # 1 is DISMISSED pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric on 8/30/2024. (mmg).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
KAREN L.,
Plaintiff,
v.

6:23-CV-0629
(ML)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

COLLINS & HASSELER, PLLC
Counsel for the Plaintiff
225 State Street
Carthage, New York 13619

LAWRENCE D. HASSELER, ESQ.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Counsel for the Defendant
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235

VERNON NORWOOD, 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 heard

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

in connection with those motions on August 22, 2024, 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. Nos. 9 & 13) 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 30, 2024
Binghamton, New York
____________________________________
Miroslav Lovric
United States Magistrate Judge
Northern District of New York

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------x
KAREN A. LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action No. 6:23cv629

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------x

Transcript of a Decision from a
Teleconference Hearing held on August 22, 2024, the
HONORABLE MIROSLAV LOVRIC, United States Magistrate
Judge, Presiding.

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

COLLINS & HASSELER, PLLC
225 State Street
Carthage, New York 13619
BY: LAWRENCE D. HASSELER, ESQ.

For Defendant:

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
BY: VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ.

Lisa M. Mazzei, RPR
Official United States Court Reporter
10 Broad Street
Utica, New York 13501
[phone]

2
1

(The following is an excerpt of a

2

teleconference hearing held on 8/22/2024.)

3
4

THE COURT:

Okay.

All right.

Well, let me begin

my analysis, reasoning and decision as follows:

5

In this case, the Plaintiff has commenced this

6

proceeding pursuant to Title 42 United States Code Section

7

405(g) to challenge the adverse determination by the

8

Commissioner of Social Security finding that she was not

9

disabled at the relevant times and therefore ineligible for

10

the benefits that she sought.

11

By way of background, the Court notes as follows:

12

Plaintiff was born in 1978.

13

46 years of age.

14

date of her application for benefits.

15

She is currently approximately

She was approximately 42 years old on the

Plaintiff stands approximately 5 feet 4 inches in

16

height and weighs approximately 190 pounds.

17

high school graduate who attended regular education classes.

18

Her employment history includes work as an assembly line

19

machine operator.

20

Plaintiff is a

At the time of her administrative hearing on

21

December 7, 2021, Plaintiff lived with her two sons, ages

22

approximately 15 and 12 years of age.

23
24
25

Procedurally, in this case, the Court states as
follows:
Plaintiff applied for Title II and Title XVI

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

3
1

benefits on October 15th of 2020, alleging an onset date of

2

July 24th of 2018.

3

In support of her applications for benefits,

4

Plaintiff claims disability based on a number of physical and

5

mental health impairments, including fibromyalgia,

6

degenerative disc disease, arthritis, depression, and

7

anxiety.

8
9

Administrative Law Judge Robyn L. Hoffman conducted
a hearing on December 2nd of 2021, to address Plaintiff's

10

applications for benefits and held a supplemental hearing on

11

June 3, 2022, to hear vocational expert testimony.

12

ALJ Hoffman issued an unfavorable decision on

13

August 3rd of 2022.

14

determination of the agency on May 5th of 2023, when the

15

Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review.

16
17
18

That decision became the final

This action was commenced on May 25th of 2023, and
it is timely.
In her August 3, 2022 decision at issue in this

19

case, the ALJ first determined that Plaintiff met the insured

20

status requirements of the Social Security Act through

21

September 30, 2020, and then commented the familiar five-step

22

test for determining disability.

23

At step one, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had

24

not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the amended

25

alleged onset date of July 27, 2018.

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

4
1

At step two, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff had

2

the following severe impairments.

First, fibromyalgia.

3

Next, lumbar spinal degenerative disc disease.

4

of carpal tunnel syndrome in the right wrist status-post

5

surgery.

6

hip.

7

headaches.

Next, history

Next, mild degenerative joint disease of the right

Next, right ear hearing loss.

Next, migraines and

And lastly, persistent depressive disorder.

8

At step three, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff did

9

not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met

10

or medically equaled the severity of any listed impairments.

11

In making this determination, the ALJ expressly considered

12

the following listings:

13

disorders of the skeletal spine.

14

with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Listing at 1.18, dealing with

15

abnormality of a major joint.

Listing 11.14, dealing with

16

peripheral neuropathy.

17

depressive bipolar and related disorders.

Listing at 1.15, dealing with
Listing at 1.16, dealing

And listing 12.04, dealing with

18

Next, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the

19

residual functional capacity also known as RFC to perform

20

less than the full range of light work.

21

found Plaintiff can occasionally lift and carry 20 pounds,

22

frequently lift and carry 10 pounds.

23

stand and/or walk for four hours over the course of an

24

eight-hour workday with normal breaks.

25

found, first, that Plaintiff would need to change positions

Specifically the ALJ

Sit for eight hours and

The ALJ further

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

5
1

from sit/stand as needed, but would remain at the work

2

station and on task when changing positions.

3

Second, Plaintiff can occasionally climb ramps or

4

stairs, but never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds; and that

5

Plaintiff can perform occasional stooping, kneeling,

6

crouching and crawling.

7

Next, that Plaintiff should not work in a noise

8

environment greater than moderate and is limited to work that

9

needs little or no judgment to do simple duties that may be

10

learned on the job in a short period of time.

11

Plaintiff should perform low stress work defined as

12

occasional decision making, occasional judgment required, and

13

occasional changes in the work setting with Plaintiff working

14

at goal oriented rather than production pace rate.

15

And next that

At step four, the ALJ relied on the vocational

16

expert testimony to determine that Plaintiff is not able to

17

perform any past relevant work.

18

Again relying on the vocational expert testimony,

19

the ALJ found at step five that considering Plaintiff's age,

20

education, work experience and RFC, that there are jobs

21

existing in significant numbers in the national economy that

22

Plaintiff can perform.

23

Accordingly, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not

24

disabled from her amended alleged onset date of July 27,

25

2018, through the date of the ALJ's decision.

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

6
1

Turning now to the role of the Court, I begin by

2

indicating, as you know, this Court's functional role in this

3

case is limited and extremely deferential.

4

whether correct legal principles were applied and whether the

5

determination is supported by substantial evidence, which is

6

defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would

7

find sufficient to support a conclusion.

8

Circuit noted in Brault v. Social Security Administration

9

Commissioner, that can be found at 683 F.3d 443, a 2012 case,

10

the standard is demanding more so than the clearly erroneous

11

standard.

12

finding of fact, that fact can be rejected only if a

13

reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise.

14

Turning now to the arguments presented by the

I must determine

As the Second

The Court noted in Brault that once there's a

15

Plaintiff, Plaintiff presents and raises four primary

16

contentions in her filings.

17

ALJ failed to properly assess the combined effects of

18

Plaintiff's physical and mental impairments.

19
20
21

First, Plaintiff argues that the

Second, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to
properly evaluate the medical opinion evidence.
Third, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erroneously

22

excluded any limitations on Plaintiff's use of her upper

23

extremities and hands from the RFC determination.

24
25

And then fourth, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ
failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff's subjective

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

7
1
2

description of her functional limitations.
The Court begins its decision and reasoning for my

3

decision as follows:

4

substantial evidence supports the ALJ's evaluation of the

5

medical opinion evidence addressing Plaintiff's physical and

6

mental impairments for the reasons as set forth in

7

defendant's brief and the Court adds the following analysis

8

and reasoning to its decision.

9

So, first, this Court finds that

First to begin with, the record does not support

10

Plaintiff's contention that the ALJ failed to properly

11

consider the combined effects of her physical and mental

12

impairments.

13

vacuum, as depicted in Plaintiff's brief, the ALJ considered

14

the cumulative impact of all impairments on Plaintiff's

15

ability to perform full-time work.

16

a consultative psychiatric opinion as unpersuasive because it

17

failed to recognize the impact that Plaintiff's physical pain

18

had on her depression symptoms.

19

addresses Plaintiff's medical and psychiatric treatment

20

history in greater detail than the narrow analysis in steps

21

two and three of the sequential evaluation.

22

the Court that this extensive description of all Plaintiff's

23

impairments also inform the ALJ's evaluation of the various

24

medical opinions.

25

Rather than addressing each impairment in a

Notably, the ALJ rejected

Her RFC analysis also

It is evident to

At their most basic, the amended regulations

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

8
1

governing evaluation of medical opinion evidence require that

2

the ALJ explain her findings regarding the supportability and

3

consistency for each of the medical opinions pointing to

4

specific evidence in the record supporting those findings.

5

See case of Raymond M. v Commissioner of Social Security

6

19-CV-1313.

7

decision, and that can be found at 2021 WL 706645 at page 8.

8

And that's a Northern District New York February 22nd of 2021

9

decision.

10

That is a Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter

In this case, the ALJ's decision provided

11

sufficient analysis of the persuasiveness of the medical

12

opinion evidence bolstered by that detailed recitation of the

13

longitudinal treatment record.

14

explicitly discuss the consistency and supportability factors

15

when evaluating each of the eight medical opinions addressed

16

in her decision, her thorough and accurate recitation of the

17

overall medical record allows this Court to glean the

18

rational for the ALJ's evaluation of the persuasiveness of

19

the various opinions.

20

Although the ALJ did not

For example, the ALJ's decision cited numerous

21

treatment notes and the physical consultant examination

22

report showing full or near full range of motion and strength

23

in the upper extremities and hands, despite consistent neck,

24

shoulder and back pain and diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome.

25

Thus, the ALJ marshaled substantial evidence to find a lack

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

9
1

of support for PA Melinda Rosner's opinion that Plaintiff had

2

significant limitations in forward and overhead reaching and

3

other use of her upper extremities and hands.

4

Maria S. vs. Kijakazi, No. 21-CV-0177.

5

Judge David Peebles case that can be found at 2022 WL 4619861

6

at page 5.

7

September 30, 2022 case.

8

Maria S., Plaintiff has not identified any objective evidence

9

that would reasonably call the ALJ's conclusion into

10
11

See case of

That is a magistrate

And that is a Northern District New York
In addition, as in the case of

question.
This Court finds that the ALJ applied the same

12

standard to each of the medical opinions and thus conducted

13

an adequate review for consistency and supportability with

14

each medical professional's own notes, the broader medical

15

record, and the testimonial evidence.

16

discounted much of Dr. Sara Long's minimally restrictive

17

consultative psychiatric opinion because she did not have

18

access to Plaintiff's psychiatric treatment record.

19

same time, the ALJ rejected the extreme limitations regarding

20

attention, concentration and attendance in the opinions of

21

PA Rosner and therapist Laurie Millard in light of the

22

consistently unremarkable mental status examination results

23

in the record, documented improvement in Plaintiff's mental

24

health symptoms as she progressed in treatment, and

25

Plaintiff's own description of her daily activities that

For example, the ALJ

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

At the

10
1

included driving, childcare and performing household chores.

2

Such daily activities, while not dispositive on their own,

3

are a relevant consideration when evaluating a Plaintiff's

4

claimed symptoms and limitations.

5

In formulating Plaintiff's RFC, the ALJ was not

6

required to accept every limitation in the various medical

7

opinions nor craft an RFC mirroring a particular opinion.

8

Here, the ALJ reasonably incorporated those portions of the

9

medical and psychiatric opinions that she deemed were best

10

supported by the longitudinal medical record and Plaintiff's

11

activities of daily life.

12

Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ failed to

13

adequately credit Plaintiff's testimony regarding her

14

functional limitations.

15

subjective description of her symptoms cannot alone establish

16

disability and that a review in court must give great

17

deference to the ALJ's assessment of hearing testimony, this

18

court finds that the ALJ marshaled substantial evidence to

19

support her conclusions in this area.

20

such as the need for a sit-stand option and the exacerbation

21

of Plaintiff's mental health symptoms due to her physical

22

pain, the ALJ credited Plaintiff's subjective testimony over

23

contradictory medical opinions and incorporated additional

24

limitations into the RFC.

25

of Plaintiff's testimony such as her description of

Recognizing that a claimant's

In certain instances,

The ALJ discounted other portions

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

11
1

significant difficulties in reaching and handling objects or

2

maintaining attention and concentration, where the ALJ found

3

a lack of support in the broader record.

4

In large measure Plaintiff's challenges to the

5

ALJ's evaluation of the medical opinion and testimonial

6

evidence and the resulting RFC determination are premised on

7

a disagreement over how the ALJ resolved arguably conflicting

8

evidence about Plaintiff's functional limitations.

9

sufficient that reasonable parties could interpret the

It is not

10

evidence differently, and it is not the function of this

11

reviewing court to reweigh the evidence.

12

court finds no justification for remand for further

13

consideration by the ALJ.

14

Therefore this

Based upon all of this and as a result of this

15

analysis, I find and conclude Plaintiff's motion for judgment

16

on the pleadings is denied.

17

on the pleadings is granted.

18

dismissed, and the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff

19

benefits is hereby affirmed.

20

Defendant's motion for judgment
Plaintiff's complaint is

This constitutes the decision, analysis and

21

reasoning of the Court.

22

transcribed my decision that I just rendered.

23

attach it to a summary order which will be filed in the

24

docket in the near future.

25

All right.

As I indicated, I will have
I will then

I believe that will conclude our

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

12
1

proceeding for today.

2

the day.

3

I hope everybody has a good rest of

Mr. Hasseler and Mr. Norwood, have a good day and

4

enjoy of the rest of the short summer that's left.

5

sure we'll see each other somewhere down the road again.

6

MR. NORWOOD:

7

MR. HASSELER:

8

Thank you, your Honor.
Thank you, your Honor.

(Court adjourned, 1:27 p.m.)

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

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

And I'm

1

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER

2
3

I, LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR, Official U.S. Court

4

Reporter, in and for the United States District

5

Court for the Northern District of New York, DO

6

HEREBY CERTIFY that pursuant to Section 753, Title

7

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

8

and correct transcript of the stenographically

9

reported proceedings held in the above-entitled

10

matter and that the transcript page format is in

11

conformance with the regulations of the Judicial

12

Conference of the United States.

13
14

Dated this 29th day of August, 2024.

15
16
17

/S/ LISA M. MAZZEI

18

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

LISA M. MAZZEI, RPR
Official U.S. Court Reporter