Calzada v. ASTURE
753 F. Supp. 2d 250
S.D.N.Y.2010Background
- Calzada, pro se, challenged SSA SSI denial in SDNY; magistrate recommended remand and denial of defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion.
- ALJ initially denied SSI on Nov. 28, 2008 after a hearing before Wallace Tannenbaum.
- Appeals Council denied review on Jan. 26, 2009, rendering ALJ decision the final decision.
- Plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting substantial evidence supported denial.
- Magistrate Judge Dolinger issued a 78-page Report recommending remand for further administrative consideration; judge adopted it on Nov. 17, 2010.
- Key issues center on whether the ALJ properly evaluated RFC, fully developed the record, and applied the medical-vocational framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff’s RFC. | Calzada’s impairments create more severe limitations. | ALJ properly weighed evidence and found medium work capacity. | Remand needed for RFC analysis and record development. |
| Whether diabetes and hypertension were properly deemed non-severe. | Record showed neuropathy and deterioration; should be considered severe. | Record supports non-severity. | Remand required to address diabetes/hypertension severity and develop record. |
| Whether depression was properly considered in the disability analysis. | Medication for depression suggests a mental impairment. | Depression not substantiated by record; grid analysis appropriate. | Remand required to develop mental-health evidence. |
| Whether the ALJ properly addressed listing-level impairments at Step Three. | Should have compared lumbar OA and adhesive capsulitis to listed impairments. | No impairment met listing; grid analysis used if RFC supports. | Remand for explicit Step Three analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1983) (consulting opinions may support, but not control, disability analysis when record is incomplete)
- Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2004) (grids inappropriate with significant non-exertional limitations)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (need for weighing non-exertional limitations beyond grids)
- Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1998) (remand when ALJ fails to explain why evidence does not meet listings)
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2008) (treating physician weight and need for explicit reasons)
- Dambrowski v. Astrue, 590 F. Supp. 2d 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (remand for inadequate step-three analysis)