Lewis v. Colvin
122 F. Supp. 3d 1
N.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Donna Lewis applied for DIB and SSI with onset July 1, 2009; initial denials led to an ALJ hearing and an unfavorable decision on May 31, 2012, affirmed by the Appeals Council, and Lewis sought judicial review.
- ALJ found Lewis’s bipolar disorder and panic disorder with agoraphobia severe but did not find them to meet or equal Listings; obesity and headaches found non-severe.
- ALJ assessed an RFC limiting Lewis to unskilled, low-stress work (simple tasks; occasional decision-making, changes, judgments, and interactions).
- ALJ relied in part on a March 1, 2011 non‑examining state psychiatric consultant (Dr. Apacible) and afforded some weight to consultative examiner Mary Ann Moore, Psy.D.; an LCSW (Valerie Jones‑Giles) submitted an opinion later in the record (Nov. 29, 2011) that the ALJ did not explicitly weigh.
- The ALJ issued a boilerplate credibility finding rejecting Lewis’s subjective limitations to the extent inconsistent with the RFC.
- District Court vacated and remanded, concluding the ALJ may have erred in assigning great weight to the non‑examining consultant’s opinion based on an incomplete record, and identifying other clarifications needed (weight to consultative examiner, treatment of LCSW opinion, and credibility discussion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) "Paragraph B" functional ratings (activities, social functioning, concentration) | Lewis: ALJ’s ratings of only mild restrictions in ADLs and social functioning are unsupported by substantial evidence | Commissioner: paragraph B ratings apply to steps 2–3 and are supported by cited record evidence; ALJ’s findings are not an RFC assessment | Court: ALJ’s paragraph B findings were supported by evidence and not reversible; this challenge denied |
| 2) Weight to non‑examining state psychiatric consultant (Dr. Apacible) | Lewis: ALJ erred in giving great weight to a non‑examining consultant who reviewed an incomplete record (missing LCSW opinion) | Commissioner: state agency consultants can be highly qualified and their opinions may constitute substantial evidence | Court: Remand required — great weight to Dr. Apacible was error because his opinion was based on an incomplete record that lacked the LCSW opinion |
| 3) Weight to consultative examiner (Dr. Moore) and LCSW opinion | Lewis: ALJ improperly discounted Dr. Moore and did not assign/clarify weight to LCSW Jones‑Giles | Commissioner: ALJ permissibly weighed medical opinions against record | Court: ALJ must reassess and clearly explain weight given to Dr. Moore and the LCSW under proper factors on remand |
| 4) Credibility and failure to elicit Vocational Expert testimony | Lewis: ALJ inadequately explained rejection of subjective symptoms and allegedly should have used a VE | Commissioner: ALJ’s credibility finding and step‑five showing were adequate | Court: Credibility explanation was boilerplate and insufficient — ALJ must provide specific reasoning; court did not separately decide VE issue because other errors warrant remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard of substantial evidence review)
- Williams v. Bowen, 859 F.2d 255 (2d Cir. 1988) (review must consider the whole record, including evidence detracting from the decision)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1951) (substantial evidence definition and review principles)
- Rutherford v. Schweiker, 685 F.2d 60 (2d Cir. 1982) (deference when evidence allows more than one rational interpretation)
- Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1998) (ALJ may not substitute his own medical judgment for a physician's opinion)