ROLON-TORRES v. KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedFebruary 27, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-00223
StatusUnknown

This text of ROLON-TORRES v. KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (ROLON-TORRES v. KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
ROLON-TORRES v. KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (E.D. Pa. 2023).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EVELYN ROLON-TORRES, : : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. :

: KILOLO KIJAKAZI, : No. 22-cv-00223-RAL Acting Commissioner of Social Security, : Defendant :

RICHARD A. LLORET February 27, 2023 U.S. Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Commissioner of Social Security, through the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), denied Evelyn Rolon-Torres’ (“Ms. Rolon-Torres” or “Plaintiff”) application for Social Security disability benefits. The Appeals Council affirmed the decision. This appeal followed. The ALJ determined that Ms. Rolon-Torres was not disabled under the Social Security Act’s (“SSA”) regulations. R. 17.1 Plaintiff requests review of the ALJ’s decision. Doc. No. 8 (“Pl. Br.”)2 at 1. Because I find that the ALJ erred, I remand the decision. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2020, Plaintiff filed an application for disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). In her application, Plaintiff alleged a disability onset date of May 12, 2019, citing Herniated Disk, Sciatica, Anxiety, Depression, and Vertigo diagnosis. R. 186. In 2020, Ms. Rolon-Torres’ application was denied at the initial level of review. R.

1 All references to the administrative record are listed as “R. ___.” The administrative record is ECF Doc. No. 15. 2 Unless otherwise noted, as here, all references to the electronically docketed record are cited as “Doc. No. __ at __.” 218. In December 2020, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ. R. 101. The request was granted, and a hearing was held via teleconference in April 2021. R. 16. Ms. Rolon- Torres and Denise Cordes, a vocational expert, testified at the hearing. R. 16, 159-84. The ALJ found Ms. Rolon-Torres was not disabled. R. 16. After proceeding through the SSA’s appellate process, Ms. Rolon-Torres appealed in this court in 2021. Doc. No. 1.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Claimant’s Background Ms. Rolon-Torres was 46 years old at the alleged disability onset date, making her a “younger person” under the regulations. R. 188; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563. From 1997-1998 and from 2002-2010, Ms. Rolon-Torres worked for Stasky Inc. as an executive maid. R. 215, 335. From 2016-2019, Plaintiff worked for Bravo Healthcare Services, Inc.3 as an environmental servicer/cleaner. R. 215, 334. B. The ALJ’s Decision The ALJ found that Ms. Rolon-Torres was not disabled under the SSA from May 12 through December 31, 2019. R. 17. In reaching this decision, the ALJ made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Social Security's five-step,

sequential evaluation process.4

3 Bravo Healthcare Services, Inc. is also referred to as Bravo Group Services in the record. See e.g., R. 328. 4 An ALJ evaluates each case using a sequential process until a finding of “disabled” or “not disabled” is reached. The sequence requires an ALJ to assess whether the claimant: (1) is engaging in substantial gainful activity; (2) has a severe “medically determinable” physical or mental impairment or combination of impairments; (3) has an impairment or combination of impairments that meet or equal the criteria listed in the social security regulations and mandate a finding of disability; (4) has the RFC to perform the requirements of his past relevant work (“PRW”), if any; and (5) is able to perform any other work in the national economy, taking into consideration his RFC, age, education, and work experience. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)–(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)–(v). First, the ALJ determined that Ms. Rolon-Torres was last insured on December 31, 2019, pursuant to the SSA’s insured status requirements.5 R. 18. At step one, the ALJ determined that Ms. Rolon-Torres had not engaged in any substantial gainful activity during the alleged disability period. Id. At step two, the ALJ held that Ms. Rolon-Torres had five severe impairments: Degenerative Joint Disease in the right knee, right hip

bursitis, Degenerative Disc Disease of the lumbar spine, Major Depression, and General Anxiety Disorder. R. 18-19. The ALJ also determined that Ms. Rolon-Torres had moderate limitations in all four Paragraph B mental health limitations.6 R. 21-22. At step three, the ALJ compared Ms. Rolon-Torres’ impairments with those contained in the Social Security Listing of Impairments (“listing”).7 The ALJ found that Ms. Rolon- Torres’ impairments failed to meet any listing criteria or medically equate to a listing’s severity, individually or in combination. R. 19-22. Prior to step four, the ALJ determined that Ms. Rolon-Torres had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform light work that included occasional “stooping, crouching, crawling, and kneeling, as well as climbing ramps and stairs.” R. 22. The ALJ determined that Ms. Rolon-Torres was “limited to perform simple, routine tasks; make

simple work-related decisions; and have frequent contact with the public, supervisors,

5 When an applicant is seeking disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) the ALJ must determine the applicant’s insured status. 20 C.F.R. § 404.101(a). If an applicant is “neither fully nor currently insured, no benefits are payable based on [the applicant’s] earnings.” Id. The applicant is able to recover DIB only through their last insured period. 42 U.S.C. § 423(a). 6 The four “Paragraph B” areas are (1) understand, remember, or apply information; (2) interact with others; (3) concentrate, persist, or maintain pace; and (4) adapt or manage oneself. Id. The ALJ determines if the complainant has a limitation in these four categories on a sliding scale, with the least limitation being “no limitation” and the most severe limitation as an “extreme” limitation. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00F(2). 7 The regulations contain a series of “listings” that describe symptomology related to various impairments. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P., App. 1. If a claimant's documented symptoms meet or equal one of the impairments, “the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled.” Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 141 (1987). If not, the sequential evaluation continues to step four, where the ALJ determines whether the impairments assessed at step two preclude the claimant from performing any relevant work the claimant may have performed in the past. Id. and co-workers. She is further limited to work involving only occasional changes in the work setting.” Id. The ALJ found that Ms. Rolon-Torres could not perform occasional balancing; should not climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; and should “never work at unprotected heights.” Id. At step four, the ALJ determined that Ms. Rolon-Torres was “capable of performing past relevant work as a Cleaner, Housekeeper,” leading to her

determination that Ms. Rolon-Torres was not disabled under the SSA. R. 26. STANDARDS OF REVIEW My review of the ALJ’s decision is deferential. I am bound by her findings of fact to the extent those findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 427 (3d Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, my review is limited to determining if substantial evidence supports the decision. Hartranft v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Richardson v. Perales
402 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Bowen v. Yuckert
482 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Kacee Chandler v. Commissioner Social Security
667 F.3d 356 (Third Circuit, 2011)
Warner-Lambert Company v. Breathasure, Inc.
204 F.3d 78 (Third Circuit, 2000)
Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security
577 F.3d 500 (Third Circuit, 2009)
Payton v. Barnhart
416 F. Supp. 2d 385 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2006)
Bordes v. Commissioner of Social Security
235 F. App'x 853 (Third Circuit, 2007)
McDonald v. Comm Social Security
293 F. App'x 941 (Third Circuit, 2008)
Menkes v. Comm Social Security
262 F. App'x 410 (Third Circuit, 2008)
Russell Hess, III v. Commissioner Social Security
931 F.3d 198 (Third Circuit, 2019)
Yard v. Cramond
5 Rawle 18 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1835)
Sawyer v. Berryhill
305 F. Supp. 3d 664 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
ROLON-TORRES v. KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rolon-torres-v-kijakazi-acting-commissioner-of-social-security-paed-2023.