Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
20
DECISION AND ORDER denying 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder Jr. on 9/25/2019. (HKG)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MARTHA E. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
18-CV-350
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to have the
undersigned conduct any and all further proceedings in this case, including entry of final
judgment. Dkt. No. 19. Martha E. Williams (“Plaintiff”), who is represented by counsel,
brings this action pursuant to the Social Security Act (“the Act”) seeking review of the final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying her
application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Social Security Income (“SSI”).
This Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Presently
before the Court are the parties’ competing motions for judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. Nos. 12, 15.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff applied for DIB and SSI on October 19, 2009, alleging disability
beginning on July 13, 2009. Tr. at 236-43, 946. 1 Plaintiff’s application was denied at the
1
Citations to “Tr. __” refer to the pages of the administrative transcript, which appears at Docket
No. 8.
initial level. Tr. at 105-106. On July 29, 2011, following a hearing, an Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) found Plaintiff not disabled through the date of the decision. Tr. at 116-25.
On May 31, 2012, the Appeals Council remanded the case for further consideration. Tr.
at 132-33. Following a second hearing, an ALJ again found Plaintiff not disabled through
the date of the decision, January 2, 2013. Tr. at 18-30. On August 4, 2014, the Appeals
Council denied her request for review. Tr. at 1-3. On April 2, 2015, the Honorable
William M. Skretny so ordered a joint stipulation to remand the case for further
proceedings. Tr. at 1068-69; Williams v. Colvin, 14-CV-821(WMS), Dkt. Nos. 7 & 8.
Pursuant to this Court’s order, the Appeals Council remanded the case for another
hearing on September 21, 2015. Tr. at 1070-74. At the hearing conducted on February
23, 2017, Plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, requested a closed period of
disability from July 13, 2009, through May 1, 2014, the day she began working at
substantial gainful activity levels. Tr. at 946. On January 4, 2018, an ALJ found that
Plaintiff was not disabled at any time during this closed period. Tr. at 946-65. This action
followed. Dkt. No. 1.
LEGAL STANDARD
Disability Determination
An ALJ must follow a five-step process to determine whether an individual
is disabled under the Act. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 140-142 (1987). At step
one, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful work
activity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the ALJ
proceeds to step two and determines whether the claimant has an impairment, or
combination of impairments, that is “severe,” meaning that it imposes significant
2
restrictions on the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1520(c). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of
impairments, the analysis concludes with a finding of “not disabled.” If the claimant does,
the ALJ continues to step three.
At step three, the ALJ examines whether a claimant’s impairment meets or
medically equals the criteria of a listed impairment in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of
Regulation No. 4 (the “Listings”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If the impairment meets or
medically equals the criteria of a Listing and meets the durational requirement (20 C.F.R.
§ 404.1509), the claimant is disabled. If not, the ALJ determines the claimant’s residual
functional capacity (“RFC”), which is the ability to perform physical or mental work
activities on a sustained basis, notwithstanding limitations for collective impairments.
See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e)-(f).
Step four requires the ALJ to determine whether the claimant’s RFC permits
him or her to perform the requirements of his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520(f). If the claimant can perform such requirements, then he or she is not
disabled. If claimant cannot, the analysis proceeds to the fifth (and final) step, wherein
the burden shifts to the Commissioner to demonstrate that the claimant “retains a
residual functional capacity to perform alternative substantial gainful work which exists in
the national economy” in light of his or her age, education, and work experience. See
Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted); see also 20
C.F.R. § 404.1560(c).
3
District Court Review
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes a district court “to enter, upon the pleadings
and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a
rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2007). Section 405(g) limits the scope of the Court’s
review to two inquiries: (1) whether the Commissioner’s conclusions were based upon
an erroneous legal standard; and (2) whether the Commissioner’s findings were
supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Green-Younger v.
Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 105-106 (2d Cir. 2003). Substantial evidence is “more than a
mere scintilla.” Moran v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 108, 112 (2d Cir. 2009). “It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Id. (emphasis added and citation omitted). The substantial evidence
standard of review is a very deferential standard, even more so than the “clearly
erroneous” standard. Brault v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 683 F.3d 443, 447-48 (2d Cir. 2012)
(citing Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 153 (1999)).
When determining whether the Commissioner’s findings are supported by
substantial evidence, the Court’s task is “‘to examine the entire record, including
contradictory evidence and evidence from which conflicting inferences can be drawn.’”
Brown v. Apfel, 174 F.3d 59, 62 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d
1033, 1038 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam)). If there is substantial evidence for the ALJ’s
determination, the decision must be upheld, even if there is also substantial evidence for
the Plaintiff's position. See Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41, 46-47 (2d Cir. 1996); Conlin ex
rel. N.T.C.B. v. Colvin, 111 F. Supp. 3d 376, 384 (W.D.N.Y. 2015). Likewise, where the
4
evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner’s
conclusion must be upheld. See Rutherford v. Schweiker, 685 F.2d 60, 62 (2d Cir.
1982).
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The ALJ’s Decision
The ALJ analyzed Plaintiff’s claims using the familiar five-step process
described above. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920; Lynch v. Astrue, No. 07-CV-249,
2008 WL 3413899, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2008) (detailing the five steps). Preliminarily,
the ALJ determined that Plaintiff met the insured status requirements of the Act through
March 30, 2015. Tr. at 949. At step one, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity during the period at issue, July 13, 2009 through May 1, 2014.
Tr. at 949. At step two, he found that Plaintiff had the following medically determinable
impairments: non-epileptic seizure/pseudoseizure disorder; degenerative disc disease of
the cervical and lumbar spines; obesity; sleep apnea; bipolar disorder; and adjustment
disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood; as well as the non-severe impairment
of cerebral vascular accident, or stroke. Tr. at 949-50.
At step three, the ALJ determined that none of Plaintiff’s impairments, either
alone or in combination, meets or medically equals the severity of one of the Listings,
giving special consideration to Listing 1.04 (Disorders of the Spine); 11.02 (Epilepsy);
12.04 (Depressive, Bipolar and Related Disorders); 12.06 (Anxiety and ObsessiveCompulsive Disorders); and 12.07 (Somatic Symptom and Related Disorders). Tr. at
5
950-51. The ALJ found that Plaintiff retained the RFC to perform light work as defined in
20 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1567(b) and 416.967(b) 2 with the following limitations:
The claimant can occasionally balance stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl and
climb ramps or stairs but never climb ladders, ropes or scaffolds. She can
frequently rotate her neck and frequently reach with the bilateral upper
extremities. She can work in an environment with no exposure to hazards
such as unprotected heights or moving machinery and can perform work
that does not require operating a motor vehicle as an intrinsic part of the
job. Further, the claimant can maintain attention and concentration for
simple, routine, repetitive instructions and tasks with customary work
breaks and can work in a low stress environment (meaning one with no
supervisory responsibilities; no independent decision-making required
except with respect to simple, routine work related decisions; no work at
production rate pace; and no more than minimal changes in work routines,
processes or settings). She can have occasional, incidental interaction with
co-workers and the public.
Tr. at 952-53.
Considering Plaintiff’s age (38 years old at the time of the decision),
education (at least a high school education), work experience (past work as a counter
clerk and school bus driver), and the aforementioned RFC, the ALJ determined that there
are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can
perform. Tr. at 963. According to the vocational expert, Plaintiff would be able to perform
the jobs of marker, laundry folder, addresser, and laminator. Tr at 963-64.
2
“Light work involves lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time with frequent lifting or carrying of
objects weighing up to 10 pounds. Even though the weight lifted may be very little, a job is in this
category when it requires a good deal of walking or standing, or when it involves sitting most of
the time with some pushing and pulling of arm or leg controls. To be considered capable of
performing a full or wide range of light work, you must have the ability to do substantially all of
these activities. If someone can do light work, we determine that he or she can also do sedentary
work, unless there are additional limiting factors such as loss of fine dexterity or inability to sit for
long periods of time.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567
6
Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff was not disabled from July 13, 2009, her
alleged onset date, through the date of his decision. Tr. at 964.
Judgment on the Pleadings
The parties have cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. Nos. 12,
15. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ gave “dubious” reasons for rejecting the opinions of
Dr. Lixin Zhang, Plaintiff’s treating neurologist, that Plaintiff was disabled (Dkt. No. 12-1,
pp. 14-21), and that he erroneously relied on Plaintiff’s activities of daily living to find that
she was capable of working. Dkt. No. 12-1, pp. 21-24). The Commissioner counters that
the ALJ provided a thorough and well-supported rationale for giving Dr. Zhang’s opinions
“little weight” (Dkt. No. 15-1, pp. 14-19), and that he properly considered Plaintiff’s daily
activities in concluding that Plaintiff was not as impaired as she alleged. Dkt. No. 15-1,
pp. 19-21. For the reasons that follow, this Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings and grants the Commissioner’s motion seeking the same.
The Treating Physician Rule
The “treating physician” rule requires ALJ’s to give “deference to the views
of the physician who has engaged in the primary treatment of the claimant.” Burgess,
537 F.3d at 128. Specifically, “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the
nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is wellsupported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is
not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Id. (quoting 20
C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). “Medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic
7
techniques include consideration of a patient’s report of complaints, or history, as an
essential diagnostic tool.” Id. (quotation marks and brackets omitted).
An ALJ may decline to give “controlling” weight to the opinion of a
claimant’s treating physician, but must “consider several factors in determining how much
weight [the physician’s opinion] should receive,” Id. at 129, including:
(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the
treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating
physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as
a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors
brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to
support or contradict the opinion.
Ecklund v. Comm’r, 349 F. Supp. 3d 235, 242 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Halloran v.
Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004)).
If an ALJ decides not to give “controlling” weight to a claimant’s treating
physician, “the ALJ must comprehensively set forth his reasons for the weight assigned
to a treating physician’s opinion.” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (quotation marks omitted).
The ALJ need not “explicitly walk through” the factors identified above, “so long as the
Court can conclude that the ALJ applied the substance of the treating physician rule.”
Eckland, 349 F. Supp. at 242 (quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, “[f]ailure to
provide . . . good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is
a ground for remand.” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129-30 (quotation marks omitted). Because
the “‘good reasons’ rule exists to ensure that each denied claimant receives fair process,
an ALJ’s failure to follow the procedural requirement of identifying the reasons for
discounting the opinions and for explaining precisely how those reasons affected the
8
weight given denotes a lack of substantial evidence, even where the conclusion of the
ALJ may be justified based on the record.” McCarthy v. Colvin, 66 F. Supp. 3d 315, 323
(W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Of course, the ALJ’s reasons
for discounting a treating physician’s opinion must also be “supported by [specific]
evidence in the case record.” Id. at 323 (quotation marks omitted).
Dr. Zhang’s Opinions
Dr. Zhang opined three times during the closed period of alleged disability
that Plaintiff was incapable of working. First, in a September 18, 2010 letter in support of
Plaintiff’s claim for long term disability benefits, Dr. Zhang stated that Plaintiff was unable
to work temporarily, due to dizziness and neck pain with cervical radiculopathy, “is unable
to bend, carry, lift,” and “has a limited ability for standing/walking.” Tr. 660-61. The ALJ
gave this opinion “no substantial weight” because it was inconsistent with Dr. Zhang’s
statements (in the same letter) that Plaintiff’s seizures were controlled with medications
and her sleep apnea was stable with CPAP use. Tr. at 959-60. Noting that Plaintiff had
not been tested for neuropathy related to her cervical spine, the ALJ explicitly found that
the “record does not support a limitation that would preclude the claimant from any lifting
and carrying regardless of the weights involved.” Tr. at 959. Moreover, the ALJ noted,
Dr. Zhang’s assessment that Plaintiff was totally incapable of lifting or carrying was flatly
contradicted by her testimony at the 2011 hearing “that she could lift and carry a 20-lb.
bag of potatoes without problems.” Tr. at 960. This Court finds that the ALJ properly
assigned this opinion less than controlling weight. Under agency regulations, “the more
consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to
that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). Where, as here, the
9
record does not support a doctor’s limitation, the ALJ is not required to give it controlling
weight.
The ALJ likewise gave “little weight” to the Residual Functional Capacity
Questionnaires prepared by Dr. Zhang on June 20, 2011 and November 1, 2012, in
which the doctor opined that because of her epilepsy, Plaintiff would be incapable of even
“low stress” jobs, and would have to take three unscheduled breaks, two to three hours
each, during an 8-hour day. Tr. at 804-07, 909-912. As an initial matter, the ALJ noted
that the RFC Questionnaires appeared to be based not on objective medical findings, but
on Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. On June 20, 2011, the date of the first RFC
Questionnaire, Dr. Zhang wrote in his treatment notes, “The main reason we are here
today is to help me fill out the form for the SSI, because there are so many detailed
questions that we cannot even localize in the medical record.” Tr. at 865. Dr. Zhang
continued, “We do support her application for the social security disability.” Tr. at 865. In
the ALJ’s view, these statements “undercut Dr. Zhang’s questionnaire responses as
objective medical opinions based on laboratory and clinical findings and suggest that they
are based on the subjective reports of the claimant . . .” This Court agrees. “An ALJ is
not required to give controlling weight to [a] treating physician’s opinion where ‘it was
unsupported by the objective medical evidence’ and ‘based on [the plaintiff’s] subjective
complaints.’” Fagner v. Berryhill, No. 14-CV-6569, 2017 WL 2334889, at *8 (W.D.N.Y.
May 30, 2017) (internal citations omitted).
In both RFC Questionnaires, Dr. Zhang listed epilepsy as Plaintiff’s sole
diagnosis which impacted her ability to tolerate work (Tr. at 904, 909). However, as the
10
ALJ noted, Dr. Zhang’s treatment notes do not actually support a diagnosis of epilepsy.
By February 2011, Dr. Zhang reclassified her past seizures as nonepileptic events, noted
that a January 2011 EEG showed no epileptiform activity, and stated his belief that her
ongoing seizures were not epileptic. Tr. at 692-93, 960. After further treatment, Dr.
Zhang described Plaintiff’s reported episodes as “seizure-like spells” rather than true
seizures, assessed a primary diagnosis of delayed sleep phase syndrome, and
discontinued listing epilepsy among her diagnoses. Tr. at 835, 837, 839-40, 960. The
ALJ noted that Dr. Zhang’s treatment records also did not support his
check-the-box findings in the RFC Questionnaire that Plaintiff suffered from eye focusing
problems, lethargy, double vision, coordination disturbance, and lack of alertness. Tr. at
807, 912, 961. Finally, the ALJ found that Dr. Zhang’s statement in both RFC
Questionnaires that Plaintiff had “no feeling [on the] right side of [her] face, [on the] left
side of [her] body due to stroke [on] Oct 28, 2002” was flatly contradicted by the medical
evidence, including neurologist Dr. Mark Frost’s 2009 assessment that she had
recovered almost entirely from her past stroke and was intact upon his neurological
exam. Tr. at 530.
The fact that Dr. Zhang’s treatment notes do not support a diagnosis of
epilepsy, the sole condition alleged to render her disabled, cannot be understated and
provides ample basis to disregard his RFC Questionnaires. In fact, the record is replete
with normal neurological examination findings throughout the relevant period. Tr. at 481
(noting on 7/14/2009 that Plaintiff was oriented, and her speech, affect, and reflexes were
normal with no motor or sensory deficits); Tr. at 517 (finding on 1/6/2010 that Plaintiff was
alert and interactive and her memory appropriate); Tr. at 523-25 (same on 1/13/2009); Tr.
11
at 528 (noting on 9/4/2009 that Plaintiff was awake and alert, her cognition grossly intact,
her mental status score 30/30, her pupils equal, round and reactive to light, her sensory
exam intact bilaterally to all primary modalities, and her gait stable); Tr. at 530 (same on
1/27/2009); Tr. at 603 (finding on 5/26/2010 that Plaintiff had no tremor or abnormal
movements, had stable gait and station, was alert and active, and had full strength in her
upper and lower extremities); Tr. at 687 (noting on 1/3/2011 that Plaintiff’s cranial nerves
were intact, her reflexes normal, and that she suffered from no focal neurological
deficits); Tr. at 693 (noting normal neurological findings on 2/11/2011, stating that Plaintiff
has “seizure-like” activity, “but we are still not sure that they are truly epileptic or not”); Tr.
at 771 (normal neurological exam on 5/6/2011); Tr. at 774 (normal neurological exam on
3/25/2011); Tr. at 836 (noting on 4/2/2012 that Plaintiff was alert and oriented,
demonstrated symmetrical facial sensation and no atrophy, had intact finger to nose and
rapid alternating movements bilaterally and had a stable gait); Tr. at 866 (reported on
6/20/2011 that Plaintiff had a normal neurological exam); Tr. at 874 (normal neurological
exam on 7/12/2012); Tr. at 877 (normal neurological exam on 5/31/2012); Tr. at 1384 (on
5/13/2014, noting that Plaintiff was alert and interactive, her fund of knowledge and
memory appropriate, that she had full strength in upper and lower extremities, no tremor,
no abnormal movements, symmetrical reflexes, stable gait, speech fluent and sensory
intact to all modalities).
Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the ALJ properly rejected Dr.
Zhang’s restrictive assessments, because they were not supported by the record. Newell
v. Colvin, No. 15-CV-6262P, 2016 WL 4524809, at *14 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2016)
(holding that the ALJ appropriately declined to give great weight to a portion of the
12
treating physician’s opinion, which the ALJ found to be inconsistent with the doctor’s
examination findings and other information in the record).
Plaintiff’s Daily Activities
During the relevant period, Plaintiff reported that she did dishes and
laundry, vacuumed, mopped the kitchen, cleaned the bathroom (although she said that
cleaning might take a while because of dizzy spells), took care of her dog, prepared
meals with her daughter, shopped for groceries, medications, and household goods
(although she said she walked slowly and could not find items easily), played cards, did
puzzles, socialized with houseguests, and did scrapbooking. Tr. at 358-60, 362-63, 534,
958-59. Plaintiff was also able to work part-time toward the end of her alleged period of
disability. Tr. at 595, 1005, 1017-18, 1020. The ALJ found that these daily activities
were not consistent with her allegations of disabling symptoms and limitations. Tr. at
958. Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, this was not error.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an ALJ is not required
to accept the claimant’s subjective complaints without question,” but rather “may exercise
discretion in weighing the credibility of the claimant’s testimony in light of the other
evidence in the record.” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010). The ALJ
considered various factors in deciding that Plaintiff was not as impaired as she claimed,
including, EEGs showing no epileptiform activity, numerous neurological exams within
normal limits, and her activities of daily living. These were all permissible factors. 20
C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; see, e.g., Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d
Cir. 2009) (holding that the ALJ correctly noted that Poupore was able to care for his one13
year-old child, including changing diapers, that he sometimes vacuumed and washed
dishes, that he occasionally drove, and that he watched television, read, and used the
computer). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for remand on this basis is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, this Court finds that the ALJ’s decision is free
from legal error and supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 12) is hereby DENIED, and the Commissioner’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15) is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of
the Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:
Buffalo, New York
September 25, 2019
s/ H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr.
H. KENNETH SCHROEDER, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
14
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?