Petrie v. Astrue
412 F. App'x 401
2d Cir.2011Background
- Petrie appeals a district court judgment affirming the SSA Commissioner’s denial of DIB and SSI.
- ALJ denied benefits after applying the five-step disability framework and evaluating Petrie’s mental impairments.
- Petrie challenged the treatment physician rule, the Psychiatric Review Technique, and need for a vocational expert.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation upholding the ALJ’s evaluation and findings.
- The Second Circuit reviews for substantial evidence and legal error; it affirms if the ALJ’s decision is supported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the ALJ properly apply the Treating Physician Rule? | Petrie contends treating opinions deserve controlling weight. | Astrue argues opinions not controlling if inconsistent with record. | No reversible error; weight given consistent with record and factors. |
| Did the ALJ properly apply the Psychiatric Review Technique? | ALJ failed to apply the special technique to second/third steps. | ALJ properly used PRST and relied on state agency expert. | Yes; substantial evidence supports proper application of the technique. |
| Was a vocational expert required at Step Four to assess past work? | ALJ should have consulted a vocational expert to assess cook work. | Not always required; DOT-based assessment suffices for step four. | Not required; court upheld ALJ’s step-four analysis. |
| Was Petrie’s residual functional capacity and disability determination supported by substantial evidence? | Mental impairments and RFC were not adequately supported. | Record showed mild symptoms; other experts supported unskilled work capacity. | Yes; substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC and denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2003) (treating physician rule; controlling weight criteria)
- Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1983) (treating physician weight and continuity of treatment)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (consider factors for weight of medical opinions)
- Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1998) (weighting treating-source opinions; required reasons)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (ALJ development duty when record has gaps)
- Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (standard for substantial evidence review)