Nesbit-Francis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
2:15-cv-01703
| E.D.N.Y | Feb 14, 2017Background
- Diane M. Nesbit‑Francis applied for DIB and SSI (claims filed May 2012), alleging disability from July 16, 2008 due to depression, adjustment disorder and migraine headaches; ALJ found not disabled and Appeals Council denied review.
- Two ALJ hearings: first (pro se plaintiff) and second (with counsel). Psychological expert Dr. Sharon Grant and two vocational experts (Mansey, then Davis) testified; consultative exams by Drs. Teli (internal) and Miller (psychologist); treating sources include PCP Dr. Ana Romeo and treating psychologist Dr. Granda‑Gilbert.
- Medical record: mostly normal physical exams with intermittent ankle swelling, hypertension, obesity, one ER migraine visit with normal CT; consultative internist found no physical restrictions; treating PCP later opined severe physical limits in 2014 questionnaire.
- Mental health evidence: treating psychologist diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed features but opined patient could work if given a chance; consultative psychologist diagnosed moderate major depressive disorder and panic disorder but found ability to perform simple and complex tasks; state psychological reviewers found mild/moderate functional limits. Psychological expert ultimately limited plaintiff to moderately complex, moderately stressful work.
- ALJ concluded severe impairments: hypertension, obesity, adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features; RFC: light work limited to moderately complex, moderately stressful tasks; plaintiff can perform her past work as a community worker — therefore not disabled. District court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by failing to inquire about conflicts between VE testimony and the DOT | ALJ should have asked VEs whether testimony conflicted with DOT and resolved apparent conflicts | No apparent conflict was identified; SSR 00‑4P requires inquiry only when an apparent conflict exists | No error — plaintiff failed to identify an actual or apparent DOT conflict |
| Whether inconsistent VE testimony required remand | Mansey said past skilled jobs would be precluded; Davis said community worker could be done — ALJ failed to reconcile | Each VE answered different RFC hypotheticals; no unresolved conflict existed | No remand — differences attributable to differing RFC hypotheticals |
| Whether ALJ erred by not probing ME’s (Dr. Grant) changed testimony between hearings | ALJ should have elicited explanation for change from "low stress" to "moderate stress" limitations | Any failure to probe was harmless because RFC is supported by substantial evidence | No reversible error — any omission was harmless given the record support for the RFC |
| Whether ALJ’s RFC conflicts with medical opinions he credited (treating & consultative psychologists) | ALJ credited several psychological opinions but adopted an RFC allowing moderately complex work, inconsistent with some limits (e.g., limits to simple tasks) | ALJ permissibly weighed and synthesized all medical evidence; RFC need not mirror any single opinion | No error — ALJ’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence and adequately explains weight given to opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (standard for reviewing ALJ disability determinations and substantial evidence review)
- Jasinski v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2003) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Sup. Ct. 1971) (substantial evidence standard explained)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (treating physician rule and weighing conflicting medical opinions)
- Kohler v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2008) (special technique for evaluating mental impairments)
- Byam v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2003) (retrospective treating physician opinions entitled to weight absent contradiction)
- Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (ALJ’s duty to develop the record in benefits proceedings)
- Cage v. Commissioner of Social Security, 692 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2012) (deference to Commissioner when resolving conflicting evidence)