Bump v. Colvin
3:13-cv-01379
N.D.N.Y.Mar 31, 2015Background
- Byron Bump applied for DIB and SSI (onset amended to July 1, 2008); ALJ denied benefits after a de novo hearing following a prior remand; Appeals Council denied review and district court review followed.
- Medical record: coronary artery disease with LAD stent, obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, intermittent explosive disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, multiple musculoskeletal complaints (back, shoulder, joint pain), migraines; most objective studies showed mild degenerative changes, generally normal strength/gait, and limited neurologic deficits.
- Treating/consultative opinions included: some providers (Dr. Porter, NP Briggs) reported marked limitations (frequent rests, limited sitting), while others (Drs. Magurno, Grier, state agency reviewers, consulting psychiatrists) found relatively benign objective findings or only moderate mental limits.
- ALJ found several severe impairments (cardiac, sleep apnea, obesity, shoulder post-op, borderline intellectual functioning, intermittent explosive disorder) but held that back, peripheral joint complaints, headaches/migraines, and hand/foot paresthesias were non-severe.
- ALJ assigned an RFC for a range of light work with limitations (e.g., frequent overhead use of right arm, reduced interaction demands) and relied on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines (no VE) to find Bump not disabled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step Two — whether back/joint/hand/foot/headache conditions are severe | Bump: ALJ erred by not finding these impairments severe and by demanding definitive diagnoses | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably evaluated longitudinal record; objective findings do not show severe limits | Court: ALJ applied correct legal standards; substantial evidence supports non-severe findings; any step-two error harmless because impairments were considered later |
| Weight given to treating/consultative opinions (Dr. Porter, NP Briggs, Dr. Magurno) | Bump: ALJ improperly discounted treating/consultative opinions and should have given them more weight | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly gave little weight where opinions conflicted with objective findings and activities | Court: ALJ provided adequate reasons (inconsistency with clinical findings, internal contradictions); evaluation supported by record |
| RFC — physical and mental limitations as assessed by ALJ | Bump: ALJ RFC (light work, standing/sitting hours, lifting, overhead use) not supported by evidence and downplayed impairments | Commissioner: RFC is based on full record, appropriate weighting of opinions, and supported by consultative and state-agency assessments | Court: Substantial evidence supports the RFC for exertional and non-exertional limits; mental limitations supported by consultative and agency opinions |
| Step Five / use of the Grids vs. vocational expert | Bump: Non-exertional impairments require VE testimony to assess job base | Commissioner: Non-exertional limits do not significantly erode occupational base; use of Medical-Vocational Rule appropriate | Court: ALJ properly applied the Grids (non-exertional limits had little/no effect on unskilled light work); no VE required |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for SSA determinations)
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir.) (definition of substantial evidence and treating physician weight principles)
- Jones v. Sullivan, 949 F.2d 57 (2d Cir.) (court may not substitute its judgment for Commissioner when supported by substantial evidence)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (Sup. Ct.) (approval of the five-step disability evaluation)
- Bapp v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 601 (2d Cir.) (when VE is required vs. reliance on the Grids)
- Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578 (2d Cir.) (treating physician opinions and inconsistency with record)