Duggan v. Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------x CAROLYN DUGGAN, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-01270-FB -against- COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ------------------------------------------------x Appearances: For the Defendant: For the Plaintiff: JACQUELYN KASULIS, ESQ.

CHARLES E. BINDER, ESQ. Acting United States Attorney Law Office Charles E. Binder and Eastern District of New York Harry J. Binder By: SHRUTI TEJWANI, ESQ.

485 Madison Ave. Suite 501 Special Assistant United States Attorney New York, NY 10022 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 BLOCK, Senior District Judge: Carolyn Duggan (“Duggan”) seeks review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for supplemental security income benefits. Both parties move for judgment on the pleadings. For the following reasons, Duggan’s motion is granted, the Commissioner’s motion is denied, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

I.

Duggan filed an application for Social Security Disability benefits (“SSD”) and Supplemental Security Income benefits (“SSI”) on October 24, 2016, with a disability onset date of July 12, 2016. Her claim was denied, and she requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on July 12, 2016. On October 11, 2018, a hearing was held before ALJ Shawn Bozarth, who determined that Duggan had the severe impairments of “bipolar disorder and depression” and the nonsevere impairments of “spondylosis, irritable bowel syndrome and alcohol abuse.” A.R. 16. ALJ Bozarth ruled that Duggan was not disabled and concluded she had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to “perform a full range of work at all exertional levels” with several non-exertional limitations including “low stress,” “only occasional contacts with supervisors, co-workers, and customers” and close proximity to a bathroom. Id. at 17. The Appeals Council denied Duggan’s request for review on January 10, 2020.

II.

“In reviewing a final decision of the Commissioner, a district court must determine whether the correct legal standards were applied and whether substantial evidence supports the decision.” Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377, 384 (2d Cir. 2004); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). “[S]ubstantial evidence ... means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971); see also Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013).

III.

Duggan was a legal secretary until serious mental health issues1 interfered with her ability to work. Since 2016 she has been receiving outpatient treatment for borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, depression, and alcohol dependency. She has attempted suicide in the past and has extreme difficulty navigating the world without verbal or physical altercations.2 As a result, Duggan rarely leaves her apartment. When she ventures out to take care of essentials, like grocery shopping, it is “in the middle of the night” to limit contact with other people. A.R. 34.

A[:] All right … I went food shopping at Stop & Shop and there was woman that I thought was staring at me and I had a coupon and I realized I -- Q[:] Well, what happened? You thought the woman was staring at you, and you had -- A[:] I thought the woman was staring at me and I asked her what the F she was looking at, and she beat me up.

Q[:] Okay, and -- A[:] And I -- we fought. We got into a big physical confrontation [] in Stop & Shop.

Q[:] Do you have other examples of this type of thing happening to you on the street?

A[:] Yes, I -- another time on the subway, a woman attacked me from behind because I guess I gave her a dirty look”).

Duggan argues that the ALJ violated the treating physician rule.3 The Court agrees.

Social Security Administration regulations and Second Circuit precedent “mandate specific procedures that an ALJ must follow in determining the appropriate weight to assign a treating physician's opinion.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). The treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight, “so long as it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95 (internal citations omitted). “[I]f the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, [he] must determine how much weight, if any, to give it” and must “explicitly consider” “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Id. at 95-96 (internal citations omitted).

Here, the ALJ improperly discounted the treating physicians – Drs. Tandon and Maddineni, both of whom concluded Duggan cannot work – and failed to

In addition, the ALJ seemed to believe Duggan’s mental health issues were less severe than she claimed because she responded to treatment but did not always take her medication.4 This conclusion was erroneous. As Judge Chen has noted, “[t]he ALJ does not appear to have considered the possibility, if not likelihood, that any failure by Plaintiff to take his medication is part of the [symptomology] for

Because the ALJ failed to properly weigh the treating physicians’ opinions and inappropriately minimized Duggan’s mental health issues, remand is appropriate.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Duggan’s motion is GRANTED, the Commissioner’s motion is DENIED, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of this memorandum and order.

SO ORDERED. _/S/ Frederic Block_____________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York July 19, 2020