Brunea v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2019cv01194 - Document 15 (W.D.N.Y. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER denying Plaintiff's 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting Defendant's 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; that Defendant's unfavorable determination is affirmed; and that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge William B. Carter on 3/1/2021. (JLV)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brunea v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 15 Case 1:19-cv-01194-WBC Document 15 Filed 03/01/21 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________ CASSANDRA B. o/b/o A.L.T., Plaintiff, v. 1:19-CV-1194 (WBC) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER, PLLC Counsel for Plaintiff 6000 North Bailey Ave, Ste. 1A Amherst, NY 14226 KENNETH HILLER, ESQ. CORINNE MANFREDI, ESQ. U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN. OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL – REGION II Counsel for Defendant 26 Federal Plaza – Room 3904 New York, NY 10278 DENNIS CANNING, ESQ. JENNIFER WHELAN, ESQ. William B. Mitchell Carter, U.S. Magistrate Judge, MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER The parties consented, in accordance with a Standing Order, to proceed before the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 14.) The court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter is presently before the court on the parties’ crossmotions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion is denied, and the Commissioner’s motion is granted. I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-01194-WBC Document 15 Filed 03/01/21 Page 2 of 12 A. Factual Background At the time of filing and the hearing Claimant was an adolescent. (T. 126); 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(g)(2). Claimant’s alleged disability consists of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), oppositional defiance disorder (“ODD”), and impulse control disorder. (T. 23, 187.) B. Procedural History On October 20, 2015, Plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act on Claimant’s behalf. (T. 65.) Plaintiff’s application was initially denied, after which she timely requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“the ALJ”). On April 3, 2018, Plaintiff and Claimant appeared before the ALJ, Bryce Baird. (T. 13-52.) On July 18, 2018, ALJ Baird issued a written decision finding Claimant not disabled under the Social Security Act. (T. 66-85.) On November 14, 2017, the Appeals Council (“AC”) denied Plaintiff’s request for review, rendering the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (T. 1-6.) Thereafter, Plaintiff timely sought judicial review in this Court. C. The ALJ’s Decision Generally, in his decision, the ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. First, the ALJ found Claimant was an adolescent at the time of filing and the hearing pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(g)(2). (T. 72.) Second, the ALJ found Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application date. (Id.) Third, the ALJ found Claimant suffered from the severe impairments of ADHD, ODD, and impulse control disorder. (Id.) Fourth, the ALJ found Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled 2 Case 1:19-cv-01194-WBC Document 15 Filed 03/01/21 Page 3 of 12 one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I (“the Listings”). (T. 73.) Fifth, the ALJ found Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that functionally equaled an impairment set forth in the Listings. (T. 73-81.) Sixth, and finally, the ALJ concluded Claimant had not been disabled, as defined by the Social Security Act, since October 20, 2015, the date his application was filed. (T. 81.) II. THE PARTIES’ BRIEFINGS A. Plaintiff’s Arguments Generally, in support of her motion for judgment on the pleadings, Plaintiff makes one argument. Plaintiff argues the ALJ’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ relied on stale opinions. (Dkt. No. 8 at 10-17.) Plaintiff filed a reply brief in which she deemed no reply necessary and relied on her original argument. (Dkt. No. 13.) B. Defendant’s Argument Generally, in support of hi imant’s teacher. (T. 75.) Plaintiff’s special education teacher, Lorie Nogueira, completed a 7 Case 1:19-cv-01194-WBC Document 15 Filed 03/01/21 Page 8 of 12 questionnaire in November 2015. (T. 195-205.) She indicated Claimant had some “slight” problems and a few “obvious” problems in the domain of acquiring and using information, a few “slight” problems and one “obvious” problem attending and completing tasks, and no problems at all interacting and relating with others or caring for himself. (T. 195-200.) Ms. Nogueira also stated Claimant’s medication allowed him to focus better. (T. 201.) The ALJ concluded more recent evidence, including Claimant’s legal involvement, revealed Claimant had greater limitations in the domain of interacting and relating with others than indicated by Ms. Nogueira. (T. 75.) Although Plaintiff argues Claimant’s subsequent behavioral problems and diagnosis of ODD rendered the opinions of Ms. Nogueira and Dr. Ransom stale, the ALJ considered the evidence cited by Plaintiff and ultimately found greater limitations in the domains than opined by either source. See Blash, 813 F. App’x at 642 (remand where evidence directly contradicts older reports and the ALJ failed to analyze the recent evidence). As an initial matter, under the substantial evidence standard of review, it is not enough for Plaintiff to merely disagree with the ALJ’s weighing of the evidence or to argue that the evidence in the record could support her position. Substantial evidence “means - and means only - such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154, 203 L. Ed. 2d 504 (2019) (citing Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). Plaintiff must show that no reasonable factfinder could have reached the ALJ’s conclusions based on the evidence in record and fails to do so in this case. See Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012). 8 Case 1:19-cv-01194-WBC Document 15 Filed 03/01/21 Page 9 of 12 Although Plaintiff argues the evidence in the record rendered the opinions stale, Plaintiff fails to show that no reasonable factfinder could have reached the ALJ’s conclusions. Indeed, the ALJ considered the opinions, and the evidence cited by Plaintiff, and ultimately determined Claimant’s limitations were greater than the opined limitations due to the record as a whole. The ALJ found Claimant had more restrictions in various domains than opined by Dr. Ransom or Ms. Nogueira. The ALJ found Claimant had less than marked limitations in acquiring and using information, attending and completing tasks, and interacting and relating with others; and no limitation in moving about and manipulating objects, caring for himself, and health and physical well-being. (T. 75, 76-81.) As noted above, Ms. Nogueira indicated Plaintiff had “slight” limitations in some aspects of acquiring and using information as well as attending and completing tasks, and a few “obvious” limitations in other subparts of those two domains, but no interpersonal limitations. (T. 195-205.) After a complete psychological evaluation, Dr. Ransom opined Plaintiff had no limitations at all. (T. 314). Remand is generally not warranted where the ALJ’s findings are more restrictive than the limitations set forth in the medical opinions of record. Lesanti v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 436 F. Supp. 3d 639, 649 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (citing Baker v. Berryhill, No. 1:15-CV-00943, 2018 WL 1173782, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2018)). Plaintiff makes the related argument, that because the opinion evidence was stale, the ALJ had a duty to further develop the record. (Dkt. No. 8 at 15.) However, as outlined above, the opinions were not rendered impermissibly stale due to subsequent evidence and the ALJ considered all of the evidence in the record in making his 9 Case 1:19-cv-01194-WBC Document 15 Filed 03/01/21 Page 10 of 12 determination. As noted by Defendant, Plaintiff’s request contemplates an impossible to achieve, and never ending, case development cycle. (Dkt. No. 12 at 20-21.) Further, the record was adequate for the ALJ to make a determination. Janes v. Berryhill, 710 F. App’x 33, 34 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing Perez, 77 F.3d at 48) (“The ALJ is not required to develop the record any further when the evidence already presented is ‘adequate for [the ALJ] to make a determination as to disability.’”). Therefore, the ALJ was not obligated to further develop the record. Overall, the opinions provided by Ms. Nogueira and Dr. Ransom were not rendered stale by subsequent evidence. The ALJ relied on the opinion evidence and the subsequent evidence in making his domain determinations. The ALJ ultimately determined, based on the record as a whole, Claimant had greater limitations than provided in the opinions. Plaintiff also argues the ALJ’s determination Claimant had less than marked limitation in the domain of interacting and relating with others directly contradicted the ALJ’s step two determination Claimant’s ODD was severe. (Dkt. No. 8 at 14.) In support of her position, Plaintiff cites to case law in which ODD was found severe at step two, but in which the ALJ found the individual had no interpersonal limitations at all. (See Dkt. No. 10 at at 14 (citing F.S. v. Astrue, No. 1:10-CV-444, 2012 WL 514944, at *18 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2012) and Hudson ex rel. S.G. v. Astrue, No. 1:06-CV-1342, 2009 WL 1212114, at *9 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2009)). Here, unlike in F.S. and Hudson ex rel. S.G., although Plaintiff’s teacher and the consultative examiner found he had no limitations, the ALJ found Claimant’s ODD caused some difficulty with his interpersonal abilities and determined Plaintiff had less 10 Case 1:19-cv-01194-WBC Document 15 Filed 03/01/21 Page 11 of 12 than marked limitations in this domain. (T. 78.) Indeed, the ALJ considered evidence that Claimant had legal difficulties including conflicts with an adult neighbor. (Id.) The ALJ also considered evidence describing Claimant as polite and well-mannered, and that he got along well with providers and friends. (Id.) Therefore, the ALJ properly considered Claimant’s ODD and interpersonal abilities in the domain of interacting and relating with others. Plaintiff may disagree with the ALJ's conclusion; however, the Court must “defer to the Commissioner's resolution of conflicting evidence” and reject the ALJ's findings “only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise.” Morris v. Berryhill, 721 F. App’x 29 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Krull v. Colvin, 669 F. App'x 31 (2d Cir. 2016) (the deferential standard of review prevents a court from reweighing evidence). As long as substantial record evidence supports the ALJ’s determination of the facts, the Court must defer to the ALJ’s decision. See DavilaMarrero v. Apfel, 4 F. App'x 45, 46 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Alston v. Sullivan, 904 F.2d 122, 126 (2d Cir. 1990)). As the Supreme Court stated, “whatever the meaning of ‘substantial’ in other contexts, the threshold for such evidentiary sufficiency is not high.” Biestek, 139 S. Ct. at 1154. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 12) is GRANTED; and it is further 11 Case 1:19-cv-01194-WBC Document 15 Filed 03/01/21 Page 12 of 12 ORDERED that Defendant’s unfavorable determination is AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Dated: March 1, 2021 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
