Dingman v. Colvin
6:16-cv-06107
W.D.N.Y.Mar 24, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Genevieve Dingman applied for DIB and SSI alleging disability from a 2009 motor vehicle accident (back, neck, shoulder, ankle); applications filed Sept. 19, 2012; denied and ALJ held hearing May 27, 2014; ALJ issued adverse decision Aug. 15, 2014; Appeals Council denied review and district court review followed.
- ALJ found severe impairments: degenerative disc disease and partial right rotator cuff tear; RFC: light work with no climbing, limited posturals, frequent reaching/overhead, occasional exposure to hazards, occasional driving.
- ALJ found Plaintiff could perform past relevant work (teacher aide, production solderer) and other light jobs per VE; concluded not disabled and relied on Medical-Vocational Guidelines and VE testimony.
- Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s weighing of medical opinions (treating PCP Dr. Wadsworth; PT Kim Jablonski; consultative Dr. Karl Eurenius; Dr. Phillip Vitticore) and the credibility assessment of her subjective complaints.
- Court reviewed ALJ’s application of legal standards and substantial-evidence support, upheld ALJ’s discounting of the most restrictive opinions as inadequately supported and inconsistent with objective testing, conservative treatment, gaps in care, daily activities (including attending college and driving), and normal/limited diagnostic findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ improperly discounted treating PCP Dr. Wadsworth’s RFC | Wadsworth’s opinion shows disabling limitations and inability to sustain full-time work | ALJ permissibly gave little weight because the opinion was conclusory, lacked objective support, and conflicted with treatment/diagnostic records | ALJ did not err; substantial evidence supports giving little weight to Wadsworth’s opinion |
| Whether ALJ erred by discounting PT Jablonski (an “other source”) | Jablonski’s RFC supports more restrictive limits | ALJ may treat PT as other source and gave little weight due to conclusory opinions inconsistent with records | ALJ properly considered and discounted PT opinion as unsupported and inconsistent |
| Whether ALJ erred in assigning partial/limited weight to consultative Dr. Eurenius | Eurenius’s exam supports marked limitations (neuropathy, major postural limits) | Defendant: later normal EMG/nerve studies and other exams undercut marked findings; daily activities inconsistent | ALJ’s partial weight was supported: further testing did not document neuropathy and records showed less severe limitations |
| Whether ALJ’s credibility assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms was legally inadequate | Plaintiff argued ALJ overstated significance of college attendance and gaps in treatment | Defendant: ALJ permissibly considered activities, treatment gaps, conservative care, unemployment benefits and inconsistencies when assessing credibility | Credibility analysis met legal standards and was supported by substantial evidence; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 2002) (courts defer to Commissioner when supported by substantial evidence)
- Townley v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1984) (reviewing court must independently determine correct legal standards)
- Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983 (2d Cir. 1987) (sequential review and substantial-evidence standard)
- Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1998) (limitations of relying solely on lack of clinical findings)
- Diaz v. Shalala, 59 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1995) (non-acceptable medical sources and opinion evidence)
- Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1983) (ALJ must give sufficiently specific reasons for credibility findings)
- Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 2010) (harmless-error principle when correct legal application would not change outcome)
- Ferraris v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 582 (2d Cir. 1984) (standards for reviewing credibility determinations)
- Aponte v. Sec’y, Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 728 F.2d 588 (2d Cir. 1984) (ALJ may reject subjective complaints after evaluating objective evidence and credibility)