Morgan v. Colvin
1:15-cv-02823
E.D.N.YSep 29, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Xiomara Y. Morgan (b.1958) applied for SSI alleging disability from fibromyalgia and rheumatoid/polymyalgia-type conditions with an amended onset date of October 1, 2010; ALJ denied benefits on April 9, 2013 and Appeals Council denied review.
- Medical record shows multilevel cervical/lumbar degenerative disease on MRI, inflammatory markers (elevated ESR/CRP), variable rheumatoid serology, and treatment with Prednisone and NSAIDs.
- Treating sources (PCP Dr. Feldman and rheumatologist Dr. Ricciardi) provided restrictive opinions including markedly limited lifting/standing and, in Feldman’s view, total inability to work; consultants (Drs. Thukral, McCormack) found milder limitations compatible with at least light work.
- ALJ assessed severe impairments (fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, spondylosis), formulated an RFC for light work with occasional stooping/squatting/crawling, found plaintiff unable to perform past work but able to perform other jobs, and denied benefits.
- Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s treatment-of-physician-opinions, credibility assessment, and the Appeals Council’s refusal to remand after receiving a post-decision rheumatology report (Dr. Fields). Court affirmed ALJ and Appeals Council.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treating-physician rule weight | ALJ improperly discounted treating physicians’ opinions and failed to give controlling weight | ALJ gave "good reasons" to give limited weight because treating opinions conflicted with record, each other, and contemporaneous findings | Court: ALJ permissibly resolved conflicts and provided adequate reasons for limited weight |
| Credibility of subjective symptoms | ALJ failed to properly credit plaintiff’s pain/fatigue and functional limits | ALJ reasonably found statements inconsistent with objective findings and activities of daily living (walked to hearing, lives in 3rd-floor walk-up, uses public transit) | Court: substantial evidence supports ALJ’s credibility finding |
| Consideration of new evidence (post-decision exam) | Appeals Council should have remanded based on Dr. Fields’ October 2013 report | Appeals Council permissibly declined remand because report was cumulative and did not show reasonable probability of changing outcome for period before ALJ decision | Court: Appeals Council did not err in refusing to remand |
| RFC adequacy | RFC does not accommodate claimant’s demonstrated limits (sitting/standing, frequent breaks, hand limitations) | RFC is supported by treating and consultative records and examining/consultative opinions (ALJ relied on consistent evidence) | Court: RFC supported by substantial evidence and permissible weighing of opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1998) (court defers to ALJ credibility and RFC findings when supported by substantial evidence)
- Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2013) (definition of substantial evidence and requirement to review entire record)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (standard for substantial evidence)
- Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2012) (five-step disability analysis framework)
- Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 2002) (genuine conflicts in medical evidence are for the Commissioner to resolve)
- Brault v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2012) (ALJ need not state every reason on record but must provide adequate rationale)
- Matta v. Astrue, [citation="508 F. App'x 53"] (2d Cir. 2013) (ALJ may adopt an RFC that does not perfectly match any single medical opinion if supported by the record)