Emmanuel G. v. Kijakazi
- Jones
- 1:22-cv-06497
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 27
In Emmanuel G. v. Commissioner, Judge Jones reversed the benefits denial and ordered further review of Emmanuel G.’s past work during the closed period.
Emmanuel G.’s claim for Supplemental Security Income for the closed period from November 3, 2016, through July 6, 2020; the Commissioner must conduct further administrative proceedings.
What happened
Emmanuel G. v. Commissioner of Social Security concerned Emmanuel G.’s claim for Supplemental Security Income for a closed period from November 3, 2016, through July 6, 2020. An administrative law judge found that Emmanuel G. could perform light work with some restrictions and could return to his past work as a security guard.
The court upheld the administrative law judge’s treatment of the medical opinions and Emmanuel G.’s complaints about pain and limitations. But the court found that the administrative law judge did not consider whether Emmanuel G.’s heart condition would limit his ability to respond to sudden, stressful, and strenuous situations that could arise in security-guard work.
Judge Gary R. Jones reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings. The agency must reconsider whether Emmanuel G. could perform his past work during the closed period and, if not, whether he was otherwise entitled to benefits for that period.
The detailed version
- Emmanuel G. v. Kijakazi · No. 1:22-cv-06497
- Jones
- Jan. 26, 2024
Background
Emmanuel G. applied for Supplemental Security Income on November 3, 2016, alleging disability beginning August 1, 2015. The Commissioner denied the application. After an earlier related proceeding, the matter was remanded by agreement for further administrative proceedings.
Emmanuel G. later received benefits based on two new applications beginning in October
- This case therefore concerned a closed period beginning November 3, 2016, and ending July 6,
- After a second hearing, Administrative Law Judge Seth Grossman again denied benefits on April 4,
- The judge found that Emmanuel G. had severe congestive heart failure but retained the capacity to perform light work, with no crawling and no more than occasional crouching, stooping, or bending. The judge concluded that Emmanuel G. could perform his past relevant work as a security guard.
Issues and analysis
Emmanuel G. challenged three aspects of the administrative decision: the evaluation of medical opinions, the treatment of his subjective complaints, and the finding that he could perform his past work.
The court upheld the administrative law judge’s decision to give only some weight to the opinion of Emmanuel G.’s primary care physician, Dr. Mahmood Karimi. The court found that Dr. Karimi’s significant restrictions were inconsistent with generally unremarkable treatment findings and with other medical opinions, including opinions from Dr. Ram Ravi, Dr. Alan Meisel, and medical expert Dr. Joseph Gaeta. The court also found no error in the treatment of records from cardiologist Dr. Edward Brown because those records did not contain an assessment of work-related limitations during the period at issue.
The court also upheld the decision to discount, but not entirely reject, Emmanuel G.’s reports of disabling pain and limitations. The administrative law judge reasonably relied on the treatment records, medical opinions, and reported daily activities, including walking at least 10 blocks, climbing several flights of stairs, and traveling outside the country for approximately six weeks in 2020.
The court reached a different conclusion about the past-work finding. The vocational expert testified that a person with the administrative law judge’s stated restrictions could perform security-guard work as generally performed. But the record included opinions that Emmanuel G. should avoid mildly to moderately strenuous activity, and the administrative law judge recognized significant heart disease, including a heart attack. The court found that the administrative law judge considered strenuous activity mainly as physical exertion such as walking and standing, without addressing Emmanuel G.’s ability to respond to a sudden stressful or strenuous situation—such as an incident requiring a security guard to apprehend or expel someone.
Because the vocational expert was not asked whether a person unable to tolerate sudden exertion and stress could perform security-guard work, the court found that the step-four finding was not adequately supported.
Disposition
Judge Gary R. Jones reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the matter under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. The remand requires consideration of whether Emmanuel G. could perform his past relevant work during the closed period and, if not, whether he was otherwise entitled to benefits for that period. The Clerk was directed to enter final judgment and close the file.
Read the full 27-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.