Fuimo v. Colvin
2013 WL 2458953
N.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Fuimo applied for Supplemental Security Income in 2008 alleging disability beginning May 7, 2008; claims denied on August 15, 2008; ALJ held a hearing December 17, 2009 and issued a March 26, 2010 denial; Appeals Council denied review March 10, 2011; final decision thus lies with the ALJ's March 2010 ruling.
- The ALJ applied the SSA five-step framework to determine disability, including RFC analysis and whether impairments meet Appendix 1 criteria.
- IQ testing showed full-scale IQs of 67 (May 7, 2008) and 70 (January 7, 2010); adaptive functioning deficits were suggested by examiners but not clearly present before age 22 according to the ALJ.
- Fuimo testified to ongoing depression, social withdrawal, and reliance on others for daily functioning; she attended special education and worked intermittently with accommodations, but experiences suggested functional limitations.
- The district court ultimately held that the ALJ erred in evaluating the evidence, particularly with respect to Listing 12.05(C), non-exertional RFC assessment, and social anxiety, and reversed and remanded for calculation of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fuimo meets or equals Listing 12.05(C). | Fuimo and medical sources show adaptive deficits from development and IQ 60–70; impairments meet 12.05(C). | ALJ properly found no adaptive deficits to meet 12.05(C) given developmental history and functional presentation. | Remand for calculation of benefits; Fuimo meets 12.05(C). |
| Whether the RFC is supported given non-exertional limitations not adequately considered. | ALJ failed to give significant weight to Drs. Russell and Moore and to consider non-exertional limitations. | RFC based on substantial evidence; other opinions appropriately weighed. | RFC not supported by substantial evidence; reversal and remand for benefits. |
| Whether social anxiety was properly considered as a severe impairment at Step 2. | ALJ did not mention social anxiety at Step 2. | Social anxiety considered within the overall severe impairment analysis. | Step 2 error; court remands for calculation of benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantial evidence standard and review of entire record)
- Martone v. Apfel, 70 F. Supp. 2d 145 (N.D.N.Y. 1999) (remand when gaps or need for further evidence arise)
- Parker v. Harris, 626 F.2d 225 (2d Cir. 1980) (remand appropriate for additional evidence or analysis when warranted)
- Williams v. Bowen, 859 F.2d 255 (2d Cir. 1988) (role of whole-record review in substantial evidence inquiry)