Morales v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:20-cv-05274
S.D.N.Y.Mar 21, 2023Background
- Morales applied for Supplemental Security Income on December 2, 2018 (amended alleged onset December 2, 2017); ALJ denied benefits on July 2, 2019 and Appeals Council denied review; this suit followed.
- Longstanding psychiatric history: major depressive disorder, PTSD, anxiety, insomnia, and tension/migraine headaches; treated at Harlem Hospital and Morris Heights with psychotherapy and psychotropic medications.
- Treating psychiatrist Dr. Elsie Bermudez completed a medical-source questionnaire describing marked to extreme limitations and predicted 20% off-task time.
- Consultative examiner Dr. Laura Kerenyi found intact alertness/memory for simple tasks, some limitations for complex instructions, and concluded depression did not markedly interfere with daily functioning.
- ALJ found depression and PTSD severe but migraines non-severe, assigned an RFC for work at all exertional levels limited to simple, routine, non-production pace tasks with occasional co-worker/supervisor contact and no public contact; VE identified unskilled jobs available under that RFC but testified there were not significant jobs if a claimant needed to work in isolation.
- Plaintiff argued the ALJ erred by mischaracterizing her education, "cherry-picking" medical evidence (discounting Dr. Bermudez), and relying on an impermissible factor (the identity/presence of her companion, alleged boyfriend Cruz); the district court denied relief and granted the Commissioner judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Education level | Morales left school in 9th grade and should be treated as having "limited" education; VE/ALJ reliance requires remand. | Education was not controlling; VE jobs were unskilled and unaffected by HS vs. 9th-grade label; ALJ properly considered education among other factors. | Court: No error; substantial evidence supports ALJ and education did not change the VE outcome. |
| Weight accorded to treating psychiatrist (Dr. Bermudez) | ALJ improperly discounted treating opinion finding marked/extreme limitations. | ALJ permissibly found questionnaire inconsistent with treating notes and repeated normal mental-status exams. | Court: ALJ’s reasons supported by substantial evidence; discounting was proper. |
| RFC / cherry-picking / need to work in isolation | ALJ cherry-picked favorable records and failed to credit that Morales needed to work in isolation (VE said no significant jobs if isolation required). | ALJ considered the record, limited interaction with coworkers/supervisors and no public contact; record shows group therapy attendance, some public transport use, and activities of daily living inconsistent with complete isolation. | Court: RFC supported by substantial evidence; no impermissible cherry-picking. |
| Reliance on alleged misrepresentation about companion (Cruz) | ALJ relied on inconsistency (calling boyfriend an "uncle") to discredit Morales — impermissible non-medical factor. | ALJ noted the inconsistency but explicitly did not base the RFC on it and avoided confronting claimant due to domestic abuse history; any inquiry was not dispositive. | Court: No impermissible reliance; ALJ did not base the disability finding on that fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012) (substantial-evidence review of Commissioner’s factual findings)
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for weighing treating physician opinions)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Brault v. Social Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2012) (deferential standard of review)
- Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2013) (description of five-step disability evaluation)
- Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2004) (Commissioner’s burden at step five and use of the grids/VE testimony)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (vocational evidence and step-five analysis)
- McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2014) (RFC must allow meaningful judicial review and be supported by substantial evidence)
- Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (ALJ must consider claimant’s statements about symptoms and other record evidence)