Cohen v. Commissioner of Social Security
643 F. App'x 51
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Christina Erica Cohen appealed the denial of Social Security disability benefits, arguing mental and physical impairments prevent substantial gainful activity.
- The ALJ found Cohen had severe impairments (bipolar disorder NOS, PTSD, learning disorders, asthma, back syndrome) but retained the RFC for certain sedentary work with environmental, stress, and limited-interaction restrictions.
- At step 3 the ALJ found a moderate limitation in attendance standards but did not explicitly restate that limitation in the step 4 RFC; the ALJ’s hypothetical to the vocational expert did not expressly mention attendance limits.
- The ALJ gave less-than-controlling weight to some treating-physician opinions based on conflicting objective treatment records showing improvement and evidence of social functioning.
- The ALJ discounted portions of Cohen’s subjective testimony as inconsistent with record evidence (e.g., social activities, use of public transportation).
- The vocational expert testified that jobs (clerical, assembler) exist in significant numbers that Cohen could perform given the RFC; the district court affirmed and this Court reviewed the administrative decision on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by not incorporating treating physician’s moderate attendance limitation into RFC/hypothetical | Cohen: ALJ failed to include physician’s moderate attendance limitation in RFC and VE hypothetical | Commissioner: ALJ implicitly accounted for attendance limits; step 4 need only provide an adequate basis for review | Affirmed — ALJ’s RFC and hypothetical adequately reflected limitations; step 4 findings supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether ALJ improperly declined controlling weight to treating physicians | Cohen: ALJ should have given controlling weight to treating opinions | Commissioner: ALJ may decline controlling weight where contradicted by substantial record evidence | Affirmed — ALJ permissibly discounted treating opinions given contradictory treatment records and improvements |
| Whether ALJ improperly discredited Cohen’s subjective testimony | Cohen: Her testimony about limitations should have been credited | Commissioner: ALJ may discredit subjective statements inconsistent with objective and other record evidence | Affirmed — ALJ reasonably found claimant’s reported activities and treatment records inconsistent with disabling limitations |
| Whether there are jobs in significant numbers Cohen can perform (step 5) | Cohen: Non-exertional limits preclude jobs identified by VE; RFC insufficient | Commissioner: VE testimony coupled with Guidelines framework supports that jobs exist | Affirmed — VE testimony and framework support conclusion that jobs exist in national economy Cohen can perform |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (standard of review for SSA denials: legal error or lack of substantial evidence)
- Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (review is not de novo; definition of substantial evidence)
- McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2014) (step 4 findings need only provide an adequate basis for meaningful judicial review)
- Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1545 (2d Cir. 1983) (Commissioner may reject treating physician’s opinion if contradicted by substantial evidence)
- Marcus v. Califano, 615 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1979) (Commissioner may credit or discredit claimant testimony based on independent evidence)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence in administrative findings)
- Valente v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 733 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1984) (court may not substitute its judgment for Commissioner’s when supported by substantial evidence)