House v. Commissioner of Social Security
861 F. Supp. 2d 59
N.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiff Sheryl L. House filed for disability insurance benefits in April 2006 alleging inability to work since September 2004 due to multiple impairments.
- The Commissioner denied benefits; an ALJ held a hearing on October 21, 2008 and denied benefits in a February 20, 2009 decision.
- The Commissioner’s final decision was made July 31, 2009 after the Appeals Council denied review.
- Plaintiff sued in August 2009 seeking judicial review; the case proceeded under General Order No. 18 treating briefs as a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- The ALJ found several impairments severe (e.g., cervical degenerative disc disease, lumbar degenerative changes, arthritis, obesity) but did not find a listing-level impairment; Plaintiff’s RFC was between sedentary and light with specific limitations; the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation granting the Commissioner’s motion and denying the Plaintiff’s.
- The proceeding culminated in a February 29, 2012 order adopting the Report-Recommendation and granting judgment on the pleadings for the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hidradenitis suppurativa was a severe impairment at step 2. | Hidradenitis suppurativa is a severe condition impairing work ability. | ALJ properly found hidradenitis non-severe since other impairments were already severe and evidence showed no impact on basic work activities. | No reversible error; hidradenitis non-severe given other severe impairments. |
| Whether Plaintiff’s spine impairment met or equaled Listing 1.04(A). | Impairment met or equaled Listing 1.04(A) due to nerve root compression, motion limitation, and motor loss. | Record lacked motor loss with sensory or reflex loss; 1.04(A) not satisfied. | Record supports not meeting 1.04(A); no reversible error. |
| Whether treating-source opinions from Hinman (PA) and Dr. Bach (Chiropractor) should be given controlling weight. | Treating sources should be given controlling weight if well-supported. | PAs and chiropractors are not acceptable medical sources; their opinions are to be weighed as 'other sources' with no controlling weight. | ALJ’s discount of those opinions supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether use of the Medical-Vocational Grids was appropriate at step 5. | Grids alone may be insufficient; vocational expert needed due to non-exertional impairments. | Grids appropriate given RFC and demographics; substantial evidence supports denial. | No reversible error; Grid reliance appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (defining substantial evidence standard and deference to agency conclusions)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (establishes five-step disability analysis framework)
- Dixon v. Shalala, 54 F.3d 1019 (2d Cir. 1995) (step-3 Listing burden and deference to agency findings)
- Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (non-exertional impairments may preclude Grid reliance; case-by-case)
- Bapp v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 601 (2d Cir. 1986) (Grid applicability; case-by-case analysis regarding non-exertional impairments)