462 F. App'x 16
2d Cir.2012Background
- Parker-Grose applied for Social Security Disability benefits after alleged depression; the district court affirmed the Commissioner’s denial (Nov. 16, 2010).
- The ALJ found Parker-Grose’s mental impairment of depression nonsevere at step two, limiting consideration of functional limits in RFC accordingly.
- Evidence showed depression in 2003 and 2006 assessments by Dr. Joseph M. Patalano and a GAF of 60 (Dr. Root II) in 2006, later 55 in 2008, indicating moderate symptoms and functioning impairments.
- ALJ relied on Parker-Grose’s limited engagement with mental health treatment as grounds for nonseverity, despite some therapy and antidepressant treatment.
- The district court’s decision was vacated and remanded by the Second Circuit to address errors in severity finding and RFC formulation.
- This appeal requires remand for reconsideration of whether mental impairments are severe and properly accounted for in Parker-Grose’s RFC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred in finding mental impairment nonsevere. | Parker-Grose’s depression evidence shows significant impairment. | ALJ reasonably found only minimal functional impact from depression. | Remand required; nonsevere finding not supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether RFC properly accounts for mental impairment limitations. | RFC did not reflect limitations from depression despite evidence. | RFC should exclude nonsevere impairments from consideration. | Remand required to incorporate mental limitations into RFC. |
| Whether any error at step two was harmless given the remaining steps were completed. | Error at step two affected RFC and thus cannot be harmless. | Harmless error because later steps were satisfied. | Error not harmless; remand necessary. |
| Whether the decision should be vacated and remanded for proper consideration. | District court judgment should be vacated; remand for proper analysis. | Remand only if necessary for proper considerations. | Remand to district court with instruction to vacate and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (focus is on the administrative ruling, not de novo review)
- Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1998) (standard for reviewing district court’s decision)
- Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (no de novo disability determination; must be substantial evidence)
- Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1998) (substantial evidence standard for SSA determinations)
- Dixon v. Shalala, 54 F.3d 1019 (2d Cir. 1995) (severity regulation valid when screening de minimis claims)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court 1971) (definition of substantial evidence and functional impairment framework)