577 F.Supp.3d 237
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Plaintiff Ana M. Acevedo applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability beginning January 3, 2018; ALJ denied benefits on July 3, 2019; Appeals Council denied review and plaintiff sought federal review.
- At hearing Acevedo reported hip, knee, back pain (diagnosed as osteoarthritis/degenerative disc disease and fibromyalgia-like complaints), use of cane/knee brace, limited standing/walking (~20 minutes/one block), and left-eye glaucoma/blurred vision; she previously worked as office/front office clerk.
- ALJ found Acevedo insured through Dec. 31, 2020, not engaged in substantial gainful activity since alleged onset, and identified severe impairments: right knee and hip osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease, plantar fasciitis, left heel spur.
- ALJ found asthma, obesity, left-eye vision issues, anxiety and depression non-severe, concluded no Listings met or equaled, and assigned an RFC for light work with sit 6 hrs, stand/walk combined 6 hrs, occasional postural limits, no ladders/heights, and limited environmental exposures.
- ALJ relied on medical records, consultative and state agency opinions, and claimant testimony; concluded Acevedo could perform past relevant work (office/front office clerk) and therefore was not disabled.
- District Court reviewed deference to ALJ, found substantial evidence supported the decision, denied Acevedo’s motion and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step Two: non-severity findings | ALJ erred by labeling asthma, obesity, left-eye vision, glaucoma, depression and anxiety non-severe | ALJ reasonably concluded records show mild or well-controlled conditions and considered non-severe impairments in RFC | Court held step-two findings supported by record and any labeling error harmless because ALJ considered all impairments in RFC |
| Credibility / SSR 16-3p | ALJ improperly discounted Acevedo’s pain testimony and failed to credit persistent treatment efforts | ALJ permissibly weighed testimony against objective findings, daily activities, and treatment; followed SSR 16-3p factors | Court held credibility assessment supported by substantial evidence and conformed to SSR 16-3p |
| RFC sufficiency & medical opinions | RFC not supported: ALJ failed to adopt treating/consultative opinions (e.g., 4-hr standing limit), lacked narrative, ignored spine diagnoses and some exam findings | ALJ reasonably evaluated conflicting opinions, relied on state agency reviews and objective findings, and provided sufficient rationale for light-RFC; any standing-limit dispute would not change outcome because past job is sedentary | Court held RFC supported by substantial evidence; ALJ permissibly weighed medical opinions |
| Visual impairments / SSR 83-14 & SSR 85-15 | Vision problems and glaucoma materially reduce occupational base; SSRs require greater accommodation | Ophthalmology records show near-normal acuity with glasses and minimal complaints; SSR 85-15 applies only to solely non-exertional cases | Court held vision not severe, SSR 83-14/85-15 inapplicable; substantial evidence supports ALJ’s conclusion |
| Medication side effects | Gabapentin causes dizziness/loopy feeling and should have been credited to produce greater limitations | ALJ considered balance/dizziness in RFC (environmental limits); record exams showed normal gait/romberg and inconsistencies with claimed dizziness | Court held ALJ adequately considered side effects and substantial evidence supported limiting balance via environmental restrictions |
Key Cases Cited
- Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2013) (district court reviews whether ALJ’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and correct legal standards)
- Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2015) (definition and scope of substantial evidence review)
- Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (ALJ may discount claimant’s subjective complaints after weighing evidence)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (‘‘substantial evidence’’ means relevant evidence a reasonable mind accepts)
- Brault v. Social Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2012) (substantial-evidence standard explained)
- Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1998) (reviewing court does not determine disability de novo)
- Williams ex rel. Williams v. Bowen, 859 F.2d 255 (2d Cir. 1988) (ALJ must give specific reasons when rejecting claimant testimony to permit meaningful review)
- Aponte v. Secretary, Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 728 F.2d 588 (2d Cir. 1984) (upholding deference to ALJ credibility findings)
- Ferraris v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 582 (2d Cir. 1984) (RFC must be stated with sufficient specificity to permit review)
- Mancuso v. Astrue, [citation="361 F. App'x 176"] (2d Cir. 2010) (objective exam findings can support light-work RFC)
- Petrie v. Astrue, [citation="412 F. App'x 401"] (2d Cir. 2011) (ALJ need not explicitly address every piece of evidence if rationale can be gleaned)