Pellam v. Astrue
508 F. App'x 87
2d Cir.2013Background
- Pellam challenged an ALJ denial of disability benefits in which the district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision.
- The ALJ found Pellam unable to perform past work but capable of sedentary work with incidental overhead reach and need to change sitting/standing positions; vocational expert testimony supported other jobs.
- Dr. Nikita Dave, a consultative examiner, opined moderate to severe limitations affecting bending, twisting, lifting, and other functions.
- Pellam contends the ALJ erred by rejecting Dr. Dave’s opinion, not seeking a treating-physician opinion, and misapplying credibility standards.
- The record included treating-physician treatment notes and periodic assessments showing variable pain and range of motion, with some normal findings.
- The court reviews the ALJ’s decision for substantial evidence and legal error, applying a five-step framework but focusing on the ALJ’s RFC and credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ improperly reject Dr. Dave's opinion? | Pellam contends Dr. Dave's findings should control RFC. | The ALJ properly weighed Dr. Dave against other medical evidence and treating records. | No reversible error; RFC supported by substantial evidence. |
| Was there a failure to obtain a medical source statement? | ALJ needed a medical source opinion to support RFC. | No obligation where record is complete and consistent with RFC; treating notes suffice. | Not required given complete record and consistency with RFC. |
| Did the ALJ apply correct credibility standards? | ALJ failed to apply all regulatory factors explicitly. | ALJ considered relevant factors and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; substantial evidence supported credibility assessment. | Credibility determination supported by substantial evidence. |
| Did the ALJ properly determine whether Pellam could perform other jobs in the national economy? | RFC may be insufficient to support other jobs without full medical support. | RFC plus VE testimony suffices; no additional medical source needed. | ALJ’s use of RFC and VE testimony was proper; other jobs found substantial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (focus on administrative ruling; substantial evidence standard)
- State of N.Y. v. Sullivan, 906 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1990) (step-five framework; determining jobs available in economy)
- Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009) (SSA burden at step five; need not provide more RFC evidence)
- Curry v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2000) (medical opinions must be sufficiently specific; vague limits insufficient)
- Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1996) (regulatory framework; medical opinion requirements)
- Carroll v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 705 F.2d 638 (2d Cir. 1982) (credibility assessments and judicial role in evaluating witnesses)