Covey v. Colvin
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45092
W.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff Leann M. Weed Covey (born 1982) applied for Social Security disability insurance on January 30, 2012, alleging onset in August 2008 from back injury, PTSD, depression/anxiety, learning disability; application denied and ALJ Smith found not disabled; Appeals Council denied review; plaintiff filed suit.
- Medical record: history of 2009 motor vehicle trauma with largely unremarkable CT/MRI imaging; recurring low‑back, hip and foot pain managed with narcotic analgesics and injections; pain clinics and primary‑care notes documenting tenderness, limited range of motion, and symptom control on medication.
- Mental‑health record: diagnoses including major depressive disorder, PTSD, panic disorder with agoraphobia, and reports of auditory hallucinations; intermittent psychiatric treatment with medication adjustments, multiple missed/canceled therapy appointments; IQ testing showing borderline intellectual functioning (WAIS‑III Full Scale IQ 78).
- ALJ determined at step two that severe impairments included PTSD, anxiety with agoraphobia, depression, bipolar disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, and asthma; did not find back pain to be a severe impairment but considered it in the RFC.
- ALJ RFC: full range of work at all exertional levels but limited to simple tasks, simple decisions, routine schedule, limited social interaction (avoid complex joint tasks), handle reasonable simple work‑related stress, and avoid concentrated respiratory irritants.
- ALJ relied on the Grids at step five (no vocational expert) and concluded plaintiff was not disabled; district court reviews the Commissioner’s decision for substantial evidence and legal errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by not treating back pain as a severe impairment at step two | ALJ should have found back pain severe given ongoing treatment, pain clinic visits, injections, and prescriptions | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably found imaging and records did not show objective disease and pain was controlled with medication; even if error, it was harmless because other severe impairments were found and considered | Court: No reversible error. ALJ’s finding supported by record; any step‑two error would be harmless because ALJ proceeded with full analysis and considered pain in the RFC |
| Whether ALJ failed to develop the record by not obtaining treating/provider functional assessments or a consultative exam | ALJ should have recontacted treating sources or ordered a consultative exam to assess limitations | Commissioner: Record was sufficient; burden on plaintiff to show how impairments limited functioning; substantial evidence allowed RFC without additional assessments | Court: No duty breach. Record was sufficiently developed and ALJ’s RFC was supported by treatment notes, consultative review, and objective testing |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility finding improperly discounted plaintiff’s subjective symptoms (including missed treatment due to mental illness) | ALJ improperly discredited complaints, misread daily activities, and failed to account for mental‑illness causes of noncompliance | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly weighed inconsistencies between reports, treatment adherence, activities, and objective findings | Court: ALJ applied the required two‑step analysis, considered daily activities, treatment adherence, objective evidence, and had substantial basis to find claimant not fully credible |
| Whether ALJ erred by using the Medical‑Vocational Guidelines (Grids) instead of calling a vocational expert given non‑exertional limitations | Non‑exertional limits (psychological, borderline IQ, social limits) significantly diminish the occupational base requiring a vocational expert | Commissioner: ALJ found non‑exertional limitations had little or no effect on the unskilled occupational base so Grids were proper | Court: ALJ did not err. Non‑exertional limits were found not to significantly narrow the occupational base, so reliance on the Grids was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983 (2d Cir. 1987) (where legal error in ALJ’s application of standards can warrant reversal despite substantial evidence)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1938) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- Draegert v. Barnhart, 311 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 2002) (claimant bears burden to demonstrate disability)
- Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1983) (reviewing court does not conduct de novo review of benefits determinations)
- Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1996) (affirmance appropriate where substantial evidence supports Commissioner even if record contains contrary support)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (ALJ must develop record where there are obvious gaps in medical records)