Cascio v. Michael J. Astrue, as commissioner of the social security administration
1:10-cv-05666
E.D.N.YJan 17, 2012Background
- Cascio seeks review of the Commissioner’s denial of benefits under the Social Security Act.
- ALJ applied the five-step framework and found Cascio not disabled.
- RFC found to permit full range of sedentary work; non-exertional limits acknowledged.
- Medical-Vocational Guidelines used to conclude no disability given age/education/work history.
- Physical therapists’ opinions considered as “other source” evidence, not controlling.
- Appeals Council denial left final agency decision, review in district court challenged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treating-physician weight assignment | Cascio argues treating opinions lack of controlling weight. | ALJ provided reasons consistent with record; conflicts resolved by Commissioner. | Approved; ALJ properly discounted treating opinions with adequate reasons. |
| RFC supported by evidence on stress handling | Record shows inability to deal with stress; RFC error. | ALJ considered mental impairments; RFC supported by record. | RFC supported; mental limitations not disabling. |
| Not all impairments deemed severe | ALJ ignored certain physical impairments. | ALJ considered evidence; those impairments not all severe. | Substantial evidence supports finding of not all impairments severe. |
| Specific jobs not listed in economy | ALJ failed to name specific jobs Cascio can perform. | ALJ used Medical-Vocational Guidelines; explicit jobs not required. | Proper reliance on guidelines; no listing of specific jobs required. |
| Subjective pain credibility | ALJ failed to base credibility on medical evidence. | ALJ conducted proper two-step credibility analysis. | Credibility determination supported by record and analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard for reviewing SSA decisions; substantial evidence review)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (definition of substantial evidence and review framework)
- Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009) (limited burden shift at step five to show work in economy)
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (treating-physician rule and weight standard)
- Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1998) (good reasons required when rejecting treating opinions)
- Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 2002) (conflicts in medical evidence resolved by Commissioner)
- Diaz v. Shalala, 59 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1995) (evidence from other sources; weight when not treating source)
- Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (Supreme Court 1983) (use of vocational guidelines in disability determinations)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (guideline-based determinations with non-exertional limits)