Ferrari v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
1:18-cv-02709
| E.D.N.Y | Jun 19, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Frances Ferrari applied for Social Security Disability Insurance on March 20, 2015, alleging disability from February 20, 2015, due to diabetes, atrial fibrillation, right knee problems, pulmonary disease/asthma, and hypertension.
- ALJ Hilton R. Miller held a hearing on March 28, 2017, heard testimony from the plaintiff, a vocational expert (VE), and a medical expert, and issued a decision on May 9, 2017 finding Ferrari not disabled.
- The ALJ found severe impairments (atrial fibrillation, diabetes, COPD, right knee disorder) but concluded Ferrari retained the RFC for a range of light work with a sit/stand option and limited standing/walking.
- ALJ gave limited or some weight to the plaintiff’s treating physicians (primary care Dr. LaBarbera, orthopedist Dr. Reilly, cardiologist Dr. Ariton) and significant weight to a non-examining orthopedic reviewer, Dr. Thompson.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the ALJ failed to properly apply the treating physician rule and failed to resolve whether identified jobs required ‘very little, if any’ vocational adjustment under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1568(d)(4).
- District court (Judge Ann M. Donnelly) granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded for further proceedings to reassess treating-source opinions and vocational adjustment findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ properly weighed treating physicians’ opinions | ALJ failed to give controlling or adequately explained weight to treating doctors; did not explicitly consider required factors | ALJ implicitly relied on treatment notes and objective tests to discount treating opinions | Remanded: ALJ must specify weight given and explicitly address frequency, length, nature, support, consistency, and specialization when discounting treating opinions |
| Whether ALJ permissibly credited non‑examining consultant over treating physicians | Treating doctors’ opinions are entitled to greater weight than a non‑examining reviewer who never saw plaintiff | Non‑examining reviewer’s opinion was reasonable and supported RFC | Remanded: ALJ must justify elevating non‑examiner over treating sources per regulation and explain reasons in decision |
| Whether ALJ adequately considered medical evidence supporting cardiologist’s opinion (atrial fibrillation) | ALJ ignored or failed to discuss evidence supporting Dr. Ariton’s conclusions about symptomatic AF and resultant limitations | Commissioner relied on normal perfusion study/echo to discount limitations | Remanded: ALJ must consider and discuss the evidence both for and against the treating cardiologist’s opinion |
| Whether VE testimony and decision addressed required vocational adjustment analysis | ALJ failed to ask VE whether transferability required more than "very little, if any" vocational adjustment and did not include such an analysis in decision | VE identified transferable skills; ALJ relied on that to find jobs available | Remanded: ALJ should clarify whether identified jobs require only "very little, if any" vocational adjustment under § 404.1568(d)(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard for district court review of Commissioner’s factual and legal determinations)
- Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2015) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (substantial evidence standard explained)
- Ellington v. Astrue, 641 F. Supp. 2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (legal error can overturn ALJ despite substantial evidence)
- Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983 (2d Cir. 1987) (legal error can require reversal)
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (ALJ must set forth good reasons for weight given to treating physician)
- Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2013) (factors ALJ must consider when discounting treating opinion)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (remand required when ALJ fails to apply substance of treating physician rule)
- Vargas v. Sullivan, 898 F.2d 293 (2d Cir. 1990) (improper to elevate opinion of non‑examining medical adviser over treating physician)