993 F. Supp. 2d 169
N.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiff Craig Petersen sought DIB/SSI in Jan 2008 based on physical/mental impairments; ALJ found disability beginning May 22, 2010 but not prior.
- Appeals Council denied review on Jan 10, 2011, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.
- Plaintiff filed suit Feb 2, 2011 seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3).
- Magistrate Judge Bianchini issued a Report-Recommendation (Aug 10, 2012) remanding for further proceedings; no objections were filed.
- Court adopted the Report-Recommendation in full, remanding to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFC supportability and consistency with medical evidence | Petersen argues the RFC conflicts with the consultative examiner (Dr. Magurno) | Astrue argues the RFC is supported by other record evidence | Remand required for re-evaluation of the RFC |
| Credibility determination for pain | Petersen contends the ALJ failed to adequately articulate reasons aligning with evidence and witness testimony | Astrue contends credibility is properly limited by RFC | Remand required to reassess credibility with complete evidentiary accounting |
| Need for vocational expert | Petersen asserts the ALJ should have consulted a vocational expert given non-exertional impairments | Astrue contends Grid framework suffices | Remand warranted to determine whether VE testimony is needed |
| Psychiatric impairment assessment | Petersen argues the psychiatric evaluation (Dr. Moore) conflicts with the ALJ’s RFC | Astrue maintains reliance on non-examining consultants and notes objective evidence | Remand to reassess mental impairments and reconcile conflicting opinions |
| Date of disability onset and timing of medical evidence | Petersen contends onset date should be reevaluated in light of medical evidence | Astrue relies on age-based rules and existing RFC | Remand to determine onset date based on record; avoid post-hoc rationalizations |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (substantial evidence standard; test for reliability of evidence)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (establishes five-step disability framework)
- Ferraris v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 582 (2d Cir. 1984) (five-step framework; burdens at step five)
- Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983 (2d Cir. 1987) (requirement of substantial evidence; deferential review)
- Wagner v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 906 F.2d 856 (2d Cir. 1990) (legal standard for judicial review of SSA disability determinations)