298 F. Supp. 3d 581
W.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiff Noemi Ortiz applied for Disability Insurance Benefits alleging disability beginning August 11, 2011; SSA denied benefits and ALJ Brian Kane found her not disabled after a February 5, 2015 hearing. Appeals Council denied review; Ortiz sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- ALJ found severe impairments: left shoulder capsulitis, wrist tenosynovitis, diabetes, and asthma; RFC: less than full range of sedentary work, can lift 10 lbs occasionally, sit 6/8 hrs, stand/walk 2/8 hrs, and occasionally use non-dominant (left) upper extremity for fingering/handling.
- ALJ relied on medical opinions he gave significant weight to (Drs. Montalvo, Hausmann, Arreaza) and gave little weight to a post-surgical RFC completed by NPC Christie Bowen (misattributed by the ALJ to Dr. Gonzalez).
- Ortiz argued remand was required because (1) the ALJ substituted his own lay judgment for medical opinion regarding left-hand limitations, (2) the ALJ failed to incorporate environmental and absenteeism limitations from Dr. Arreaza, and (3) the ALJ improperly evaluated NPC Bowen’s opinion.
- District Court held the ALJ applied correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supported the RFC and step-five finding; Ortiz’s motion for remand was denied and the Commissioner’s judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ impermissibly substituted his own lay opinion re: left upper extremity fingering/handling | Ortiz: No medical opinion supports "occasional" use for left hand, and pre-op opinions are stale given Dec 2014 surgery | Commissioner: ALJ relied on multiple post-op and pre-op exams and reasonably weighed evidence; record sufficient to assess RFC | Held: ALJ did not impermissibly substitute lay opinion; substantial evidence supports RFC finding |
| Whether ALJ erred by not adopting Dr. Arreaza's environmental limits and 2-days-per-month absenteeism | Ortiz: ALJ afforded great weight to Arreaza but omitted his restrictions without explanation | Commissioner: Omission was harmless because VE-identified jobs do not require exposure to those conditions and VE said up to two absences/month is acceptable | Held: Error, if any, was harmless; limitations would not change step-five result |
| Whether ALJ improperly evaluated/discounted NPC Bowen's treating "other source" RFC | Ortiz: ALJ mis-evaluated and failed to assign proper weight to Bowen’s post-op limitations, which conflicted with RFC | Commissioner: ALJ considered Bowen’s form (mistakenly called it Dr. Gonzalez’s), gave it little weight because it was a temporary post-surgical assessment and Bowen is not an "acceptable medical source" | Held: ALJ misattributed the form but adequately considered and permissibly gave it little weight as temporary; misattribution harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (discussing substantial evidence standard)
- Machadio v. Apfel, 276 F.3d 103 (standard of review and RFC assessment principles)
- Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770 (consideration of whole record, including detracting evidence)
- Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578 (deference to Commissioner when supported by rational findings)
- Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402 (harmless error doctrine where correct application would yield same result)
- Matta v. Astrue, 508 Fed. Appx. 53 (ALJ need not adopt any single medical opinion verbatim; may weigh record as whole)