Howland v. Commissioner of Social Security, 5:20-cv-01014

Background

Plaintiff previously found disabled by ALJ Fein (CPD: Mar. 20, 2015) with onset July 1, 2013; CPD RFC limited handling/fingering to occasional and sedentary work.
SSA continuing disability review concluded plaintiff was no longer disabled as of January 3, 2018; ALJ Romeo affirmed after a June 5, 2019 hearing; Appeals Council denied review.
Relevant impairments: cervical fusion and degenerative disc disease (cervical/lumbar) with radiculopathy, bilateral hand paresthesias, and mental disorders (anxiety, depression, PTSD); plaintiff alleges persistent nerve damage limiting typing/handling.
ALJ Romeo found medical improvement as of Jan. 3, 2018, and adopted a current RFC allowing a range of sedentary work with frequent reaching/handling/fingering and other nonexertional limits.
Plaintiff argued the ALJ failed to show medical improvement because relied on opinions that did not compare pre- and post-CPD functioning (e.g., Dr. Ganesh, state consultants) and did not explain which evidence established change.
Magistrate Judge Peebles recommended affirming the Commissioner, concluding the ALJ applied the required continuing-disability framework and that substantial evidence supports the finding of medical improvement (notably improved hand function).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ALJ’s finding of medical improvement is supported by substantial evidence	ALJ relied on post-CPD opinions that did not compare to the CPD and failed to identify evidence of improvement	Post-CPD treatment notes and consultative exam show fewer objective hand abnormalities and an increased RFC; ALJ properly compared CPD RFC to current RFC	ALJ applied proper legal framework; substantial evidence supports medical improvement finding
Whether ALJ improperly relied on Dr. Ganesh and state agency opinions	Dr. Ganesh’s earlier opinion was previously discounted; later use is inconsistent and insufficient to show improvement	ALJ gave Dr. Ganesh and state opinions only limited/some weight and did not base the decision solely on them	ALJ’s limited reliance was permissible; no reversible error in crediting those opinions moderately
Whether ALJ failed to compare CPD and current assessments adequately	ALJ evaluated post-CPD evidence in isolation without meaningful comparison to CPD RFC	Comparison is evident: CPD limited handling/fingering to occasional; current RFC permits frequent use, showing work-related improvement	Court finds comparison adequate and improvement in hand function supported by record
Whether remand for benefits is warranted	Commissioner did not meet burden to prove medical improvement; if so, remand for benefits is proper	Record supports termination; remand is unnecessary because findings are supported	Recommended denial of remand; decision to terminate benefits affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2012) (deferential standard of review for SSA determinations)
Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 2002) (requirement to compare CPD to current functioning in continuing-disability review)
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (whole-record review principle)
Jasinski v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2003) (substantial-evidence standard applied to SSA cases)
Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1998) (ALJ must base RFC on medical evidence but need not discuss every piece of evidence)
Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard for review of ALJ findings)
Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983 (2d Cir. 1987) (reasonable doubt as to proper legal standard requires remand)
Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1983) (consideration of evidence detracting from agency’s findings)
Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1993) (procedural rule on objections to magistrate judge reports)