Daniels v. Berryhill
270 F. Supp. 3d 764
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Plaintiff Rachelle R. Daniels applied for SSDI; ALJ initially denied (2010), case remanded, ALJ found disability beginning April 11, 2012, but not before (June 3, 2014); Appeals Council denied review and Daniels sued.
- Medical record: long history of lumbar degenerative disc disease, bilateral knee degenerative joint disease (meniscectomies), median entrapment neuropathy, later cervical radiculitis; ongoing conservative treatment, intermittent surgeries and injections, reported chronic pain and narcotic use.
- At the 2013 hearing Daniels testified to worsening pain, limited sitting tolerance (~30–40 minutes per her testimony), numbness/weakness in left hand, and drowsiness from Vicodin; she performed some light work in 2011 but was not working at hearing.
- ALJ found severe impairments pre- and post-April 11, 2012, adopted two RFCs: (1) pre-4/11/2012 — light work with sit 6–8 hrs, stand/walk 2/8, no lower-extremity push/pull, occasional stoop, frequent bilateral manual dexterity; (2) on/after 4/11/2012 — sedentary with occasional manual tasks but off-task ~15% and 2 absences/month, making her disabled as of that date.
- VE testimony: under the pre-4/11/2012 RFC the VE identified sedentary/light unskilled jobs (surveillance monitor, security clerk, telephone order clerk); with the post-4/11/2012 limitations no jobs existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ’s evaluation of treating physicians’ opinions | ALJ cherry-picked portions, failed to give controlling weight and did not analyze relevant portions | ALJ adequately weighed treating opinions, gave reasons for discounting conclusory/unsupported portions | ALJ did not err; substantial evidence supports weight given to treating source opinions |
| Credibility of Daniels’ symptom testimony | ALJ improperly discounted Daniels’ pain complaints and functioning | ALJ relied on conservative treatment, physician opinions showing capacity for light work, and work activity to discount credibility | Credibility finding upheld as supported by substantial evidence and adequately explained |
| RFC determination | RFC failed to reflect all impairments (stooping, sit/stand at will, left-hand use, concentration) | RFC incorporated stoop limitation; record lacked support for sit/stand at will, total left-hand nonuse, or concentration deficits | RFC upheld; ALJ’s assessment consistent with medical evidence and VE hypotheticals |
| Use of VE testimony/hypotheticals | VE hypotheticals incomplete because they omitted some limitations | VE was posed hypotheticals matching ALJ’s RFCs; omission claims not supported by record | VE testimony properly relied on; ALJ’s use of VE testimony sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2013) (substantial-evidence standard for SSA review)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (treating-physician rule and requirement to give good reasons)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (deference to treating physician opinions and ALJ duties)
- Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 1999) (treating physician’s legal conclusion about disability is not dispositive)