Johnson v. Colvin
669 F. App'x 44
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Moses Johnson II applied for Disability Benefit Insurance (DBI) on August 27, 2011; application was denied and he sought review through an ALJ, the Appeals Council, and then the district court.
- ALJ Donald T. McDougall held a hearing (Jan 4, 2013) and issued a decision (Jan 31, 2013) finding Johnson had several severe impairments but retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) for light work with pace limited to no more than 10% slower than average.
- Key medical evidence: Johnson’s testimony about post-operative improvements after aortic valve replacement (ability to lift 10–15 lbs, gym attendance, independent living activities) and a December 2012 letter from Dr. Michael D’Angelo noting pre-surgery severe limitations but clinical improvement post-surgery.
- Consultative psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Renee Baskin (Oct 2011) suggested borderline intellectual functioning with minimal-to-no limitations for simple tasks, but physical issues might affect schedule maintenance.
- Johnson argued the ALJ (1) lacked substantial evidence for the RFC for light work, improperly relied on vague medical evidence and ALJ’s own lay opinion, and failed to obtain missing medical inputs; and (2) lacked substantial evidence for the 10% slower-than-average pace limitation and failed to evaluate combined effects of mental and physical impairments.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the administrative record de novo for substantial evidence and correct legal standards and affirmed the district court judgment upholding the Commissioner’s denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFC — ability to perform light work | ALJ’s RFC lacks substantial evidence; relied on vague medical opinion and ALJ lay judgment; ALJ should have recontacted a treating doctor | ALJ relied on multiple record sources (claimant testimony, Dr. D’Angelo letter, consultative exams) sufficient to support light work finding | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports RFC for light work based on record as a whole |
| Pace limitation (no more than 10% slower than average) | The 10% figure is impermissibly specific and unsupported; ALJ failed to consider combined mental and physical limitations | ALJ reasonably credited consultative psychiatrist and other evidence showing some limitation but ability to perform simple work with slight pace reduction | Affirmed — 0–10% pace limitation supported by evidence; specific percentage did not undermine finding |
Key Cases Cited
- McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review and focus on administrative record)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Cage v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 692 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2012) (deference to Commissioner resolving conflicting evidence)
- Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm'r, 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for overturning findings of fact)
- Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2013) (remand where ALJ relied on a single vague medical opinion)
- Tankisi v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 521 Fed. Appx. 29 (2d Cir. 2013) (no remand solely for failure to request additional medical opinions)
- Matta v. Astrue, 508 Fed. Appx. 53 (2d Cir. 2013) (ALJ may weigh all evidence and is not prohibited from making RFC findings when supported by record)