975 F. Supp. 2d 299
W.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Diakogiannis seeks judicial review of the Commissioner’s denial of SSI under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- Claim filed June 24, 2009 alleging disability since April 22, 2008 due to learning disability and left shoulder injuries.
- ALJ Milagros Fames issued a decision finding not disabled on April 29, 2011; Appeals Council denied review on February 15, 2012.
- Record shows adhesive capsulitis/rotator cuff issues with medical treatment (Dr. Johnsen, Dr. Stein, Dr. Samikkannu) and post-surgical recovery with variable ROM.
- RFC found as light work with one-arm overhead-reaching restriction and other non-exertional limits; VE testified to possible alternative jobs.
- Court grants Commissioner’s motion, denies Diakogiannis’s motion, and dismisses the complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether learning disability was properly deemed nonsevere at step two | Diakogiannis argues step-two error rendered RFC flawed. | Commissioner argues any error was harmless since impairments were considered later in RFC. | Harmless error; ALJ considered impairment in RFC and overall analysis. |
| Whether the RFC adequately accounts for functional limitations without a function-by-function analysis | ALJ failed to perform function-by-function assessment of physical and mental limits. | ALJ discussed relevant records and limitations; substantial evidence supports RFC. | RFC supported by substantial evidence despite absence of explicit function-by-function analysis. |
| Duty to develop the record by obtaining Dr. Samikkannu’s RFC assessment | ALJ should have recontacted treating physician to get functional RFC opinion. | Record otherwise adequate to support RFC; remand not required for missing opinion. | Record adequate; failure to obtain opinion did not require remand. |
| Whether the credibility analysis properly evaluated Diakogiannis’s subjective complaints | ALJ applied an incorrect standard and overstated inconsistencies with RFC. | Credibility assessed using proper two-step framework and entire record. | Credibility assessment supported by substantial evidence and proper standard. |
| Whether VE testimony at step five is substantial evidence given the RFC | VE relied on flawed RFC that undercounted limitations (overhead reaching, cognitive limits). | RFC properly supported; VE testimony consistent with DOT and substantial evidence. | VE testimony appropriately supported by RFC; no remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (substantial evidence standard defining review)
- Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2004) (burden shifting at five-step analysis)
- Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1998) (substantial evidence standard in disability review)
- Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2013) (function-by-function RFC analysis not always mandatory)