Dianne H. v. Saul
- Jones
- 1:21-cv-06235
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 21
In Dianne H. v. Kijakazi, Judge Jones denied Dianne H.’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s motion, and dismissed the case.
Dianne H.’s request for additional disability benefits for the period from December 17, 2018, through June 20, 2020, was unsuccessful in this court; the court left the Commissioner’s decision awarding benefits beginning June 20, 2020, undisturbed.
What happened
Dianne H. v. Kilolo Kijakazi concerned Dianne H.’s challenge to the Social Security Administration’s decision about her disability benefits. The administrative law judge found that she was not entitled to benefits from December 17, 2018, through June 20, 2020, but was entitled to benefits after that date.
Dianne H. argued that the administrative law judge incorrectly assessed her ability to work, improperly evaluated her statements about pain and limitations, and relied on an inadequate analysis of available jobs. The Commissioner argued that the decision was supported by sufficient evidence and used the correct legal standards.
Judge Gary R. Jones rejected Dianne H.’s arguments, finding sufficient support for the administrative law judge’s assessment and concluding that the identified jobs existed in significant numbers. Judge Jones denied Dianne H.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s motion, dismissed the case, and directed entry of final judgment for the Commissioner.
The detailed version
- Dianne H. v. Saul · No. 1:21-cv-06235
- Jones
- Nov. 28, 2022
Background
Dianne H. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits in July 2019, alleging that she became disabled on December 17, 2018. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Sharda Singh found that Dianne H. had several severe impairments, including spinal conditions, joint problems, obesity, and asthma.
The administrative law judge determined that Dianne H. could perform a limited range of sedentary work. The limitations included needing a cane to walk, being able to perform postural activities only occasionally, and avoiding respiratory irritants. She could not return to her past work as a shelter monitor. The administrative law judge nevertheless found that jobs existed in significant numbers that she could perform before June 20, 2020. Beginning on that date, when her age category changed, the administrative law judge found that no such jobs existed. The decision therefore denied benefits for the earlier period but awarded benefits for the period beginning June 20, 2020. The Social Security Appeals Council declined review.
Issues Raised
Dianne H. asked the district court to reverse the unfavorable portion of the administrative decision. She argued that:
- The administrative law judge’s assessment of her residual functional capacity—the work she could still perform despite her impairments—was unsupported and did not adequately account for her use of a cane for balance.
- The administrative law judge improperly discounted her statements about pain and other limitations.
- The vocational expert’s testimony did not establish that enough jobs existed in the national economy.
The parties filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The court reviewed whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard and whether substantial evidence—relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate—supported the decision.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected the challenges to the residual functional capacity assessment. It found that any lack of specificity about “postural movements” was harmless because the hearing testimony showed that the administrative law judge had considered restrictions such as climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. The court also found harmless the failure to expressly include cane use for balance in the written assessment because the hypothetical given to the vocational expert did include the need for a cane to walk and balance.
The court further concluded that the residual functional capacity finding was supported by medical opinions and the record as a whole. Although Dianne H. identified evidence supporting greater limitations, the court stated that resolving conflicts in the evidence was the Commissioner’s responsibility when the decision was supported by substantial evidence.
The court also upheld the evaluation of Dianne H.’s statements about her symptoms. The administrative law judge found that her medically determinable impairments could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms but that her statements about their intensity and limiting effects were not fully consistent with the medical evidence, treatment record, and activities such as personal care, light household chores, and short-distance driving. The court found that the administrative law judge gave sufficiently specific, record-based reasons for this assessment.
Finally, the court rejected the challenge to the step-five job findings. The vocational expert identified callout operator, addressing clerk, and cutter-and-paster positions, with reported national totals of 3,300, 3,000, and 11,000 jobs, respectively. The court concluded that the combined total of 17,300 jobs satisfied the requirement that work exist in significant numbers in the national economy.
Disposition
Judge Gary R. Jones denied Dianne H.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed the case. The clerk was directed to enter final judgment in favor of the Commissioner and close the file.
Read the full 21-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.