Kane v. Astrue
942 F. Supp. 2d 301
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Plaintiff Steven Kane claimed February 2008 fall caused cervical, lumbar and left shoulder impairments and sought DIB benefits.
- SSA denied his application; ALJ Weiss held he was not disabled in May 2010; Appeals Council denied review in May 2011.
- Court reverses the Commissioner’s denial and remands for further proceedings.
- ALJ relied on treating physicians minimally, while crediting independent examiners, and did not properly apply the treating-physician rule.
- ALJ failed to adequately develop the record and to conduct a proper credibility analysis of Kane’s pain and functional limitations.
- Remand is directed to obtain complete medical opinions and clarify Kane’s RFC consistent with governing standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treating physician rule proper application | Kane's treating doctors' opinions deserve controlling weight. | ALJ weighed opinions per 6-factor framework and record consistency. | Remand required for proper application of treating-physician rule. |
| Credibility determination of Kane's pain | ALJ failed to conduct proper 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) credibility analysis. | Credibility supported by objective record and RFC assessment. | Remand for correct credibility analysis using all seven factors. |
| Evaluation of medical evidence and record development | ALJ ignored or downplayed treating opinions and omitted later evidence (e.g., Dowling, Lim) and MRIs. | Non-treating opinions accorded weight as consistent with record. | Remand to develop and properly weigh complete medical record. |
| Adequacy of ALJ’s reasoning and weight assignments | ALJ failed to apply statutory weight-determination factors and mischaracterized treating opinions. | ALJ’s determinations were consistent with record. | Remand to re-evaluate weight per 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). |
| Remedy | Record supports disability; benefits should be awarded if appropriate. | Further proceedings needed to resolve conflicts. | Remand for further consideration; not a direct award of benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.1999) (burden shifts to the Commissioner at step five; substantial evidence standard)
- Hallman v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir.2004) (remand when treating-physician opinion not adequately explained)
- Calzada v. Asture, 753 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (ALJ must adequately explain weight and consider all evidence)
- Pagan v. Chater, 923 F. Supp. 547 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (remand when ALJ failed to develop the record or explain reasoning)
- Correale-Englehart v. Astrue, 687 F. Supp. 2d 396 (S.D.N.Y.2010) (ALJ’s credibility and record-development failures warrant remand)