90 F. Supp. 3d 47
E.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Plaintiff Elenir Silvestre Do Nascimento applied for Social Security disability benefits for impairments related to stomach/colon/gastric cancer and post-chemotherapy symptoms; alleged onset May 1, 2007.
- Administrative hearing before ALJ Robert C. Dorf; ALJ found Plaintiff disabled from May 1, 2007 through May 20, 2010, but not disabled thereafter (benefits terminated May 21, 2010).
- ALJ concluded medical improvement had occurred as of May 21, 2010 and assessed a full range of light work RFC beginning that date.
- ALJ discounted the treating oncologist Dr. Murukutla’s opinions (two assessments indicating Plaintiff could not sustain full‑time work) and found Plaintiff’s subjective complaints not credible beginning May 21, 2010.
- Plaintiff sought reversal/remand; District Court (Kuntz, J.) granted in part, remanding for further proceedings addressing treating‑physician analysis and credibility, but upheld the ALJ’s medical‑improvement finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ proved medical improvement to end benefits after May 20, 2010 | ALR claims ALJ failed to cite required objective/clinical evidence of improvement and improperly relied on cessation of chemotherapy | ALJ/Comm’r contends record (symptom reduction, improved labs/biopsies, provider notes) shows decreased severity as of May 21, 2010 | Court: ALJ met burden; substantial evidence supports medical improvement finding |
| Whether ALJ properly applied treating‑physician rule to Dr. Murukutla’s opinions | Dr. Murukutla’s opinions are supported by clinical data and should be controlling or, at minimum, the ALJ must analyze §404.1527(c) factors; if unclear, ALJ should develop record | ALJ relied on perceived internal inconsistencies and lack of documented findings to discount weight | Court: ALJ failed to give "good reasons" and did not apply §404.1527(c) factors or develop the record; remand required |
| Whether ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility | Plaintiff argues ALJ did not apply the seven §404.1529(c)(3) factors and impermissibly compared testimony to a pre‑set RFC | ALJ found symptoms could be produced by impairments but discounted intensity/limiting effect as inconsistent with RFC and treatment notes | Court: Credibility analysis insufficiently specific, did not address required factors or explain inconsistencies; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard of review: district court asks whether correct legal standards were applied and whether substantial evidence supports ALJ decision)
- Moran v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (clarifies substantial evidence review and standard for RFC and credibility issues)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (defines substantial evidence standard)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (remand warranted when record gaps exist or improper legal standards applied; ALJ must develop record)
- Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 2002) (discusses termination of benefits after closed period and requirement to show medical improvement)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (ALJ must give "good reasons" for discounting treating physician opinion)
- Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1998) (treating physician rule and its evidentiary weight)