Ortiz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
309 F. Supp. 3d 189
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiff Eduardo Ortiz applied for DIB and SSI in Jan 2014 alleging disability from June 30, 2013 due to diabetes with sensory polyneuropathy, right thigh pain (meralgia paresthetica), benign tremor, and obesity; ALJ held a hearing Nov 30, 2015.
- Medical record includes treating notes from Drs. Minutillo, Lindenbaum, Khan, consultative exam by Dr. Fkiaras, and medical expert testimony by Dr. Gussoff.
- Dr. Lindenbaum (treating) opined significant limitations from right thigh pain; Dr. Fkiaras (consultative) reported moderate–severe restrictions; Dr. Gussoff (medical expert) testified Ortiz could perform sedentary work with limits.
- ALJ found severe impairments: diabetes with sensory polyneuropathy, mild hip osteoarthritis, and obesity; rejected some treating findings (carpal tunnel, radiculopathy, tremor) as non-severe or not corroborated.
- ALJ assessed RFC for sedentary work with no climbing/balancing/crawling, occasional bending/stooping/kneeling/crouching, no driving/heavy machinery/unprotected heights, occasional uneven surfaces; relied on Dr. Gussoff and treatment notes.
- ALJ found Ortiz could perform his past sedentary job (data processor) and denied benefits; Appeals Council denied review. Court grants Commissioner judgment and denies Ortiz’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of subjective pain testimony | Ortiz contends ALJ improperly discounted his pain and symptom testimony. | Commissioner: ALJ reasonably discounted testimony based on mild objective findings, daily activities, and treatment notes showing ability to work. | Court: ALJ credibility finding supported by substantial evidence (objective findings, ADLs, and records showing he was working). |
| Weight given to treating and examining medical opinions | Ortiz argues ALJ failed to apply/regard 404.1527(c) factors and should have given treating opinions controlling weight or developed record further. | Commissioner: ALJ considered treatment notes, explained reasons for discounting treating opinion (inconsistency/supportability), and had full record so no further development required. | Court: ALJ adequately applied factors, provided good reasons for discounting treating opinion, and had no duty to seek additional opinions. |
| Duty to develop the record | Ortiz says ALJ should have obtained detailed medical source statements from treating/examining doctors. | Commissioner: Record contained treatment notes from all providers; no gaps shown, so no further development required. | Court: No record gap; ALJ not required to solicit additional RFC opinions. |
| RFC supported by substantial evidence | Ortiz contends ALJ failed to connect ADLs to capacity for sustained sedentary work and RFC unsupported. | Commissioner: RFC supported by medical expert (Dr. Gussoff), treatment notes, consultative exam (partially adopted), and plaintiff’s ADLs. | Court: RFC for sedentary work with stated limits is supported by substantial evidence (medical expert, treatment notes, ADLs, and partial adoption of consultative limitations). |
Key Cases Cited
- Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2013) (scope of judicial review — substantial evidence standard)
- Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (ALJ discretion in weighing claimant's credibility)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1998) (treating physician rule and requirement to give good reasons)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (treating physician rule — controlling weight/good reasons)
- Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009) (claimant bears burden except at step five; use of ADLs in credibility analysis)
- Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770 (2d Cir. 1999) (ALJ duty to develop record and weigh credibility)
- Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 1999) (failure to give good reasons for not crediting treating physician is grounds for remand)