Abreu v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:24-cv-04629
S.D.N.Y.Mar 17, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Carmen Julia A. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits in September 2021, claiming disability due to degenerative disc disease and other conditions since April 2, 2020.
- Her application was denied both initially and upon reconsideration. She then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
- ALJ Matthew Levin held a hearing in May 2023 and issued a decision in June 2023 denying benefits, finding Plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant period and could perform past relevant work as a counter attendant.
- The Appeals Council denied review in April 2024, making the ALJ's decision final.
- Plaintiff, represented by counsel, sought judicial review in federal court alleging errors in the ALJ’s step four analysis and RFC determination.
- The court considered cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ’s Step Four Analysis (Past Relevant Work) | Her prior counter attendant work was outside the 5-year period | Work within past 15 years qualifies (15-year rule applied) | The ALJ correctly used the 15-year rule in effect at time of decision |
| RFC Determination (Light Work/Headaches) | ALJ failed to account for functional limitations from headaches | ALJ’s finding was supported by the record and medical opinion | ALJ’s evaluation of headaches omitted key contradictory evidence; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Melville v. Apfel, 198 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 1999) (standard for judicial review of disability determinations)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (step four requires analysis of claimant’s ability to perform previous work type, not just specific job)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (remand is appropriate where ALJ applies an improper legal standard or the record is incomplete)
- Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2003) (burden-shifting framework in disability cases)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of “substantial evidence” for purposes of review)