Jackson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
1:20-cv-07476
S.D.N.Y.Mar 3, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Shawn Jackson applied for SSI (filed June 27, 2018; amended alleged onset date accepted at hearing as December 28, 2018) and was denied by an ALJ on December 9, 2019; Appeals Council denied review and Jackson sued.
- Medical record documents chronic physical impairments (polyarthritis, Osgood–Schlatter’s disease, prior right foot fracture, left shoulder injury) and mental impairments (PTSD, depression, anxiety, substance-use history); treatment records from multiple providers span 2017–2019.
- Consultative examiners and state-agency reviewers provided mostly mild-to-moderate limitations; a treating nurse practitioner (NP Herman) completed a 2019 questionnaire reporting numerous work-related limitations including ~3 absences/month.
- ALJ found severe impairments but concluded Jackson had the RFC for sedentary work with nonexertional limitations (e.g., frequent left reaching, frequent stoop/crouch, simple tasks, occasional interaction, avoid unprotected heights) and relied on consultative/state opinions; he found NP Herman’s opinion unpersuasive.
- District Court (Magistrate Judge Cott) granted Jackson’s motion to remand, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and instructed the ALJ on clarifying onset date, developing treating-source functional assessments, properly applying the SSA’s new opinion-evaluation rules (supportability and consistency), and reassessing RFC and vocational findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ duty to develop the record (physical RFC evidence) | ALJ failed to obtain functional assessments from treating providers (rheumatologist, neurologist, CareMount providers), creating an "obvious gap." | SSA notes some record requests were sent and relies on consultative/state opinions. | Remand: ALJ did not satisfy duty to develop the record; must seek treating-source functional assessments and clarify onset period. |
| Evaluation of medical opinions under 2017 regs (supportability & consistency) | ALJ merely labeled opinions "persuasive/unpersuasive" without explaining how each opinion was supported by objective findings or consistent with the record. | Commissioner contends ALJ adequately summarized and relied on the consultative and state opinions. | Remand: ALJ failed to apply the new regulations’ required analysis of supportability and consistency; further explanation required. |
| RFC supported by substantial evidence (sedentary work determination) | RFC unsupported because no treating medical opinion establishes ability to sit/stand/walk for sedentary work; ALJ relied on non-examining opinion and his own interpretation. | Commissioner argues consultative and state opinions can constitute substantial evidence. | Remand: RFC not supported by substantial evidence given incomplete record and lack of treating-source functional findings. |
| Harmless-error analysis (NP Herman absenteeism; consultative psychiatric opinion) | NP Herman’s 3-days/month absenteeism, if credited, would preclude work per VE; consultative Gindes exam showed marked/extreme limits that could change step-three/step-five outcomes. | SSA argued ALJ reasonably discounted NP Herman and relied on other evidence; harmless error. | Remand: Errors not harmless—crediting treating/provider opinions could change disability outcome; ALJ must reassess. |
Key Cases Cited
- Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2013) (substantial-evidence standard and review of administrative record)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (clarifies substantial-evidence threshold)
- Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2012) (deferential review standard; rejecting reweighing of facts)
- Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (remand appropriate where administrative record has gaps)
- Moran v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (ALJ’s duty to develop the record)
- Kohler v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2008) (procedures for evaluating mental impairments and "special technique")
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (burden allocation at sequential steps)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (RFC must be supported by medical evidence for the claimant’s ability to meet exertional demands)