Walsh v. Kijakazi
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:23-cv-00818
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Walsh v. Kijakazi, Judge Gardephe denied Walsh’s request to overturn the Social Security disability-benefits decision.
John Walsh, whose application for Social Security disability insurance benefits remained denied, and the Commissioner of Social Security.
What happened
John Walsh asked the court to review the Social Security Administration’s decision denying him disability insurance benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, who recommended denying Walsh’s request for judgment on the pleadings, meaning his request for a ruling based on the existing court filings.
Walsh argued that the administrative law judge lacked medical support for finding that he could frequently reach above shoulder level. He also argued that an option allowing him to alternate sitting and standing “at will” would prevent him from working. In a reply, he additionally argued that he qualified for a disability freeze that would extend the date through which he was insured.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe adopted Judge Netburn’s recommendation in full and denied Walsh’s motion. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s assessment of Walsh’s work capacity, the finding that suitable jobs existed, and the conclusion that Walsh did not qualify for a disability freeze.
The detailed version
- Walsh v. Kijakazi · No. 1:23-cv-00818
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 8, 2024
Background
John Walsh brought this action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for Title II disability insurance benefits. Walsh alleged that his disability began on January 1, 2013. The Social Security Administration denied his application and his request for reconsideration. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Walsh was not disabled, and the Social Security Appeals Council upheld that decision.
Walsh moved for judgment on the pleadings. He argued that the record did not support the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) finding that he could frequently reach above shoulder level. He also argued that the RFC’s “at will” sit/stand option was inconsistent with the limitation that he could be off task no more than five percent of the workday. In his reply, Walsh additionally argued that he was entitled to a disability freeze for January 2013 through December 2014, which he claimed would extend his date last insured from September 30, 2019, to September 30, 2020.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended denying Walsh’s motion. Walsh did not object to the recommendation.
Disability Freeze
The court adopted Judge Netburn’s analysis of the disability-freeze issue. A disability freeze can exclude a period of disability when calculating the quarters of coverage needed to establish insured status for a later period. Judge Netburn concluded that Walsh had not shown that he met the medical requirements for disability during the proposed freeze period. The court also agreed that, even if Walsh met the medical requirements, he did not meet the separate filing requirement: an application must be filed while the period of disability continues or within 12 months after it ends. Walsh’s application was filed on March 31, 2021, and he alternatively claimed that the earlier disability period ended on December 31, 2014. The court therefore found no error in rejecting the disability-freeze argument.
Residual Functional Capacity and Overhead Reaching
The court upheld the ALJ’s RFC determination. It agreed that substantial evidence supported the finding that Walsh could frequently reach overhead during the relevant period. The medical evidence concerning his right shoulder during that period was limited, primarily to records from June and September 2014. Those records documented shoulder pain, treatment, an injection that provided relief, and revision surgery, but Walsh acknowledged that there were no post-surgical follow-up treatment records after 2014.
The court also relied on the ALJ’s consideration of Walsh’s daily activities, the fact that much of his treatment occurred after the date last insured, and the lack of non-conclusory medical opinions stating that he was disabled before that date. The court agreed with the treatment of later opinions from Dr. Weiner and Dr. Baynes because those opinions were issued after the relevant period and were not retrospective. It further stated that the ALJ properly declined to give controlling weight to a conclusion that Walsh was “totally disabled,” because the ultimate disability determination is reserved to the Commissioner.
Sit/Stand Option
The court also upheld the RFC’s sit/stand provision. The vocational expert testified that a sit/stand change more frequently than every 30 minutes would be work-preclusive, but also testified that sedentary jobs existed for a person who could alternate sitting and standing at will while remaining on task. The RFC permitted Walsh to be off task for up to five percent of the workday. The court concluded that this testimony supplied substantial evidence that jobs existed in the national economy that Walsh could perform and that the Commissioner met the burden at the fifth step of the disability analysis.
Disposition
Judge Gardephe adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied Walsh’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The opinion therefore left in place the administrative decision denying Walsh disability insurance benefits.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.