Gavazzi v. Berryhill
687 F. App'x 98
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Matthew Gavazzi applied for Social Security disability benefits; the ALJ denied benefits and the district court affirmed. Gavazzi appealed to the Second Circuit.
- Central medical evidence: treating physician Dr. Brian Wood opined Gavazzi needed frequent position changes (sit/stand every ~15 minutes), more than 10 minutes rest per hour, would miss substantial work, and had moderate concentration/work‑pace limitations.
- The ALJ assigned minimal or no weight to those portions of Dr. Wood’s opinions, citing lack of supporting clinical evidence and inconsistencies with treatment notes, without relying on contrary medical opinions.
- The ALJ also gave little weight to an examining physician Dr. Masarech’s opinion; the panel assumed (without deciding) that decision was permissible.
- The Second Circuit reviewed whether the ALJ properly discounted treating‑physician opinions and whether the RFC analysis (including sit/stand frequency) and potential need for a vocational expert were adequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed treating physician Dr. Wood’s opinions about sit/stand needs, rest breaks, absenteeism, and concentration/work pace | Gavazzi: ALJ erred in assigning minimal/no weight to those opinions; they are supported by treating‑physician status and treatment records | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly discounted parts of Dr. Wood’s opinions as unsupported by clinical findings and treatment notes | Reversed and remanded: ALJ improperly discounted those parts without contrary medical opinion; must reconsider weight and RFC, and may develop record further |
| Whether RFC was sufficiently specific regarding frequency of sit/stand alternation | Gavazzi: RFC lacks required specificity (frequency) to determine effect on sedentary work base | Commissioner: RFC implicit findings were adequate | Reversed and remanded: ALJ must be specific about frequency and consider its effect on available sedentary work per SSR 96‑9P |
| Whether vocational expert consultation was required | Gavazzi: VE should have been consulted given potentially eroded sedentary occupational base | Commissioner: Not addressed as dispositive because ALJ found full range of sedentary work | Not decided now; court noted that if ALJ on remand finds RFC erodes sedentary base, consulting a vocational resource may be appropriate |
| Whether the district court properly affirmed ALJ decision | Gavazzi: District court should not have upheld ALJ without adequate support for discounting treating opinions | Commissioner: District court correctly applied substantial evidence review | Judgment vacated and remanded for ALJ reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370 (2d Cir.) (treating physician controlling‑weight standard)
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir.) (limits on rejecting treating‑physician opinions; non‑physician critiques require overwhelming support)
- Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402 (2d Cir.) (standard of review: substantial evidence and correct legal standard)
- Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103 (2d Cir.) (administrative review principles)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.) (ALJ cannot substitute own judgment for competent medical opinion)
- McBrayer v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 712 F.2d 795 (2d Cir.) (same principle regarding ALJ overreach)
- Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126 (2d Cir.) (weight to non‑treating critiques)