Caruso v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:18-cv-07335
| E.D.N.Y | Oct 16, 2020Background
- Samuel Caruso applied for Disability Insurance Benefits on August 11, 2015, alleging disability beginning March 30, 2015; application was denied and denied again on appeal.
- ALJ Charles Woode held a hearing on December 6, 2017, and issued a decision on December 20, 2017 finding Caruso capable of a restricted range of light work (RFC with limits for stooping, kneeling, overhead reaching with left, limited left-hand use, no ladders/ropes/scaffolds, and periodic brief sitting after standing).
- ALJ found severe impairments: lumbar degenerative disc disease with herniation, cervical degenerative disc disease, and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.
- ALJ assigned "little weight" to treating neurologist Dr. Igor Stiler and "some weight" to consultative examiner Dr. Olga Yevsikova, citing conservative treatment and claimant presentation at the hearing.
- The ALJ discounted claimant credibility based on his own observations of Caruso at the hearing (lack of obvious pain), and relied in part on the absence of invasive treatment as undermining severity.
- The Appeals Council denied review. The district court granted Caruso’s motion, found the ALJ violated the treating-physician rule and improperly relied on hearing demeanor, and remanded for calculation of benefits (with instruction to consider periods when Caruso continued to be paid by his employer).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight accorded to treating physician's opinion | ALJ failed to give controlling weight to treating neurologist Dr. Stiler and did not properly apply Burgess factors | Stiler's opinion conflicted with the record and contained internal inconsistencies; consultative opinion supports RFC | Court: ALJ violated treating-physician rule, erred in discounting Stiler based on conservative treatment and failed to properly apply Burgess/Estrella framework |
| Credibility assessment based on hearing demeanor | ALJ improperly relied on "sit-and-squirm" style observations and his own impressions to discredit subjective pain testimony | ALJ observed claimant not in obvious pain and used that to find inconsistency with alleged severity | Court: ALJ placed undue emphasis on his observations and improperly substituted his own judgment for medical evidence |
| Remedy (relief requested) | Remand for calculation of benefits given record and delay | Defendant sought affirmance | Court: Remanded for calculation of benefits and directed Commissioner to consider periods when claimant was still being paid by employer |
Key Cases Cited
- Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377 (2d Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard on review)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing administrative record)
- Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90 (2d Cir.) (two-step framework for treating physician opinions)
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir.) (factors for assigning weight to treating physician)
- Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126 (2d Cir.) (ALJ may not substitute own view or equate conservative treatment with lack of disability)
- Aubeuf v. Schweiker, 649 F.2d 107 (2d Cir.) (limitations on ALJ reliance on own observations; "sit-and-squirm" critique)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.) (remand for benefits when ALJ reached mistaken conclusion on otherwise complete record)
- Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75 (2d Cir.) (guidance on remand and disability determinations)