Opinion
20-CV-445 (GRB)
2021-03-15
Maureen Elizabeth MADIGAN, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Howard D. Olinsky, Olinsky Law Group, Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiff. Anne M. Zeigler, Frank D. Tankard, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.
Howard D. Olinsky, Olinsky Law Group, Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiff.
Anne M. Zeigler, Frank D. Tankard, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER
GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge
Introduction
For the reviewing court, Social Security disability appeals can seem, at times, opaque and intractable. One authoritative guide prepared for federal judges contends that "Social Security disability cases are baffling to many judges and lawyers." Hon. David Sanders, U.S.M.J., Social Security Disability Appeals , FJC Pocket Guide Series (2019). Adding to this burden is the sheer number of such cases: in recent years, district courts have adjudicated between ten and twenty thousand such appeals annually. See, e.g. , Social Security Administration, FY 2021 Congressional Justification , SSA Budget Information, 156 (last visited March 12, 2021), https://www.ssa.gov/budget/FY21Files/FY21-JEAC.pdf; Social Security Administration, FY 2020 Congressional Justification , SSA Budget Information, 174 (last visited March 12, 2021), https://www.ssa.gov/budget/FY20Files/FY20-JEAC_2.pdf.
The instant case is no different than the many thousands of disability appeals reviewed by district courts each year. The bound administrative record – consisting of years of medical documents (including lab results, diagnostic tests, and reams of hand-scrawled treatment records), expert medical reports, countless arcane government forms, the transcript of a generally brief, formulaic hearing, and the decision of the ALJ and agency appeals – runs nearly 750 pages. See Administrative Transcript ("Tr."), Docket Entry ("DE") 7. Through the decision, the ALJ, like most, endeavors to apply a hopelessly complicated regulatory scheme to the medical findings and history. See, e.g. , Tr. at 13 ("The claimant's degenerative disc disease fails to meet .... listing 1.04 [because, in part] ... the record evidence fails to establish spinal arachnoiditis or lumbar spinal stenosis with pseudoclaudication." ). Motion papers filed by counsel – in this case adding another sixty pages to the record – frequently contain cryptic regurgitation of the medical findings that often prove meaningless to the reader, and perhaps, the writer. See, e.g. , DE 16 at 8 ("Empty can test, impingement test, and Speed's tests were positive."); DE 18 at 9 ("Spurling's Test for cervical nerve root compression was negative[.]"). After navigating this tortured morass, the Court is then required to apply the appropriate standard of review, determining whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence.
While the diagnoses listed here are specified in the applicable regulation, and are routinely mentioned in agency decisions without clarifying language, district judges, most of whom lack training in neurosurgery, often feel compelled to research and explain these disorders when rendering opinions. See, e.g. , Naegele v. Barnhart , 433 F. Supp. 2d 319, 323, n.1 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) (defining "pseudoclaudication" by citing Stedman's Medical Dictionary ); Sickler v. Colvin , No. 14 CIV. 1411 JCF, 2015 WL 1600320, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2015) (explaining spinal stenosis and related ailments as described on various websites).
Nothing in this opinion should be seen as critical of counsel on this case. Unfortunately, these practices have been the custom in this practice area for generations.
In an effort to simplify this process, the undersigned has adopted an Individual Practice Rule requiring that, on a motion:
Rule 83 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly provides for the promulgation of local and individual rules, noting that "[a] judge may regulate practice in any manner consistent with federal law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 83. In the context of individual practice rules, the Second Circuit has noted that "[d]istrict courts may elaborate on the requirements of the national rules, adding operational details, without being ‘inconsistent’ with the national rules" and thus running afoul of Fed.R.Civ.P. 83. Fruit of the Loom, Inc. v. Am. Mktg. Enterprises, Inc. , 192 F.3d 73, 75 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Huey v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. , 165 F.3d 1084, 1085 (7th Cir. 1999) ).
plaintiff shall provide a "Statement of Contentions." This statement, conceptually similar to that required for summary judgment motions by Local Rule 56.1, shall set forth a separate, short, and concise statement, in numbered paragraphs, the contentions of the plaintiff as to the alleged legal errors in the [Commissioner]’s determination and/or the specific findings of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") that, plaintiff contends, is not supported by substantial evidence.
Individual Practice Rules of Judge Gary R. Brown , 8 (Oct. 23, 2020), Rule VII.1, https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/pub/rules/GRB-MLR.pdf. And, in turn, the Commissioner is required to
include an "Opposing Statement of Contentions," containing correspondingly numbered paragraph responding to each numbered paragraph in the statement of the moving party.
Id. at Rule VII.2. The statements must contain pinpoint citations to the administrative record identifying evidence supporting or rebutting such contentions and, as with a Rule 56.1 statement, failure to provide such statement could result in waiver or other remedy. Id. at Rule VII.2 and. 3.
To date, counsel for Claimants and the Commissioner have been remarkably diligent about complying with this procedure.
Paradoxically, this additional procedure frequently simplifies matters and reduces the burdens associated with these appeals. Contention statements help streamline the massive and complex record of a Social Security disability appeal, facilitating rapid review. This case provides an excellent example.
Discussion
In this appeal brought pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405 et seq. (the "Act"), plaintiff Maureen Madigan ("Plaintiff" or "Claimant") challenges final determinations by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Defendant" or "Commissioner") that she was ineligible to receive Social Security disability insurance benefits. See DE 1. Presently before the Court are the parties’ cross motions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), for judgment on the pleadings. See DE 15, 17. In sum and substance, the Plaintiff, who previously worked as a cashier and a bus driver, suffers from interrelated neck, shoulder and arm issues. The assigned ALJ determined that her injury and the resulting symptomology bars her from continued work as a bus driver based on the demands of that position, but found she was not disabled from her prior work as a cashier.
In its review, the Court has applied the frequently reiterated standards for entitlement to Social Security disability benefits, review of a denial of such benefits, consideration of motions for judgment on the pleadings, examination of the procedures employed, the substantial evidence rule and deference accorded to ALJ decisions, evaluation of vocational evidence and, importantly in this case, the treating physician rule. These standards, along with numerous authorities and citations, are discussed at length, merely by way of example, in Zacharopoulos v. Saul, No. 19-5075 (GRB), ––– F.Supp.3d ––––, 2021 WL 235630 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2021), which discussion is hereby incorporated by reference. The sole legal question here is whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence. The factual questions are brought into high relief by the parties’ contention statements.
The parties’ dispute primarily turns on Plaintiff's improvement as a result of neck surgery in March 2016. For example, in contending that the ALJ incorrectly determined that her cervical impairments did not meet the requisites of Listing 1.04(A), Plaintiff relies heavily on particular MRI results as well as the results of examinations by several physicians. DE 15-1 ¶¶ 1(a), 2 (a-c). However, the MRI results and most of the cited physical evaluations pre-date the noted improvements resulting from Plaintiff's March 2016 surgery and other treatments. See DE 17-1 ¶¶ 1(a), 2(a-c) and evidentiary citations contained therein. In fact, the record is replete with subjective and objective reports of improvement following the surgery and other treatments, including trigger-point injections. Id. ¶ 1(a) (collecting references), ¶ 2(b) (same); cf. id. ¶ 2(a) (describing improvements from injections). Furthermore, Plaintiff's contention that her symptomology, largely drawn from subjective reporting, meets the 1.04(A) listing is further undermined by the fact that these symptoms were not observed and/or reported consistently. See id. ¶ 1(d). Based on such inconsistencies, the ALJ's determination that Claimant failed to demonstrate that she met the identified Listing cannot be disturbed. See Social Security Acquiescence Ruling (AR) 15-1(4), Radford v. Colvin: Standard for Meeting the Listing for Disorders of the Spine With Evidence of Nerve Root Compression , 80 FR 57418-02, 2015 WL 5564523, at *57420 (Sept. 23, 2015) ; see also Biestek v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 880 F.3d 778, 784 (6th Cir. 2017) ("The regulations make no provision ... for claimants whose condition is reasonably found to be sporadic or intermittent.").
Plaintiff further contends that the ALJ improperly failed to give weight to certain medical opinions and the Plaintiff's complaints of pain. DE 15-1 ¶¶ 1-2. However, in considering the record as a whole, it is clear that the ALJ's opinion is amply supported by substantial evidence. Zacharopoulos, ––– F.Supp.3d at ––––, 2021 WL 235630, at *7 ("[T]he findings of the Commissioner as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and therefore, the relevant question is not whether substantial evidence supports plaintiff's position, but whether ‘substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision. ’ " (quoting Bonet ex rel. T.B. v. Colvin , 523 F. App'x 58, 59 (2d Cir. 2013) )). Thus, this Court must affirm the decision of the Commissioner.
Based on the foregoing, the Commissioner's motion is granted, and the Plaintiff's motion is denied.