534 F. App'x 71
2d Cir.2013Background
- Cichocki appeals a district court judgment affirming denial of disability benefits under SSA Title II.
- ALJ William Weir denied benefits after applying the five-step evaluation process outlined at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).
- Plaintiff claimed a bipolar disorder is a severe impairment and challenged credibility, RFC, and ability to perform past work.
- Record showed treatment notes indicating bipolar disorder generally managed with medication and therapy; some treating-source statements suggested greater limitation.
- Court conducts plenary review of substantial evidence and affirms the district court’s decision to deny benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bipolar disorder is a severe impairment | Bipolar disorder is a severe impairment supported by Dr. Gupta | ALJ properly discounting Dr. Gupta’s statement; other evidence supports non-severity | Severe impairment determination affirmed. |
| Whether credibility was properly assessed | ALJ failed to apply seven-factor credibility test | ALJ provided specific reasons; not required to discuss all factors | Credibility rejection upheld. |
| RFC determination and need for function-by-function analysis | RFC lacks function-by-function assessment and substantial support | RFC supported by record; no remand for function-by-function | RFC supported; no remand for function-by-function analysis. |
| Whether plaintiff can perform past work as bakery clerk | ALJ failed to adequately inquire into prior job demands; needed vocational expert | Record showed bakery clerk job suitable within light work; expert not required | Plaintiff can perform past work; substantial evidence supports finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (substantial evidence standard; treating physician conflicts must be resolved by Commissioner)
- Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 1999) (treating physician’s opinion not controlling when inconsistent with record)
- Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2003) (treating physician’s views not automatically controlling)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (courts resolve conflicting medical evidence)
- Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 2002) (genuine conflicts in medical evidence for Commissioner to resolve)
- Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1983) (credibility evaluation must be discernible from record evidence)
- Carroll v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 705 F.2d 638 (2d Cir. 1983) (establishes agency credibility assessment framework)
- Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1996) (ALJ not required to seek additional medical records when evidence adequate)