Schillo v. Saul
31 F.4th 64
2d Cir.2022Background
- Brenda Lynn Schillo filed for SSDI and SSI on May 19, 2016, alleging disability from May 17, 2016, due to cerebral palsy, fibromyalgia, essential tremor/benign tremors, Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease, and osteoarthritis.
- Administrative record included treatment notes and opinions from two treating physicians (Dr. Hassan Shukri, neurologist; Dr. Michael Picciano, PCP) and a consultative exam by Dr. Kalyani Ganesh.
- The ALJ found Schillo had severe impairments but retained an RFC for medium work with specific postural, manipulative, and environmental limits and concluded she could perform her past work as a project manager.
- The ALJ gave only partial or little weight to the treating physicians’ opinions because they were conclusory, vague, and inconsistent with objective and longitudinal medical evidence (including treatment notes and Schillo’s reported activities).
- The Appeals Council denied review and the district court affirmed. The Second Circuit affirmed, holding the ALJ’s weight assignment and RFC were supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ’s procedural error in not explicitly walking through each § 404.1527(c) factor was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ’s RFC finding is supported by substantial evidence | ALJ improperly discounted treating physicians; RFC not supported | ALJ reasonably weighed opinions against objective/longitudinal record | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports RFC |
| Whether ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to treating opinions | Treating doctors’ opinions should be controlling or better supported | Opinions were conclusory, check-box, and inconsistent with record | Affirmed: treating opinions not controlling; partial/little weight appropriate |
| Whether ALJ failed to follow treating-physician procedural requirements under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) | ALJ did not explicitly address each Burgess factor, producing procedural error requiring remand | ALJ applied substance of the rule; any procedural omission was harmless | Affirmed: procedural error acknowledged but harmless |
| Whether ALJ had duty to develop record further before discounting treating opinions | ALJ should have sought clarification from treating physicians | Record was complete (treatment notes, tests, testimony); no missing records to develop | Affirmed: no duty to further develop here |
Key Cases Cited
- Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2013) (statutory definition of disability under Social Security)
- Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 1999) (treating physician opinions not dispositive of disability)
- Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2019) (procedural rules for weighing treating opinions and "good reasons" requirement)
- Colgan v. Kijakazi, 22 F.4th 353 (2d Cir. 2022) (remand where ALJ failed to give good reasons and relied on an unrepresentative snapshot)
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (enumeration of factors for weighing treating-source opinions)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (harmless-error review when the ALJ applied the substance of the treating-physician rule)
- Brault v. Social Security Admin., Commissioner, 683 F.3d 443 (2d Cir. 2012) (deferential substantial-evidence standard of review)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (U.S. 1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (ALJ cannot arbitrarily substitute lay judgment for medical opinion; duty to develop record)
- McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2014) (conflicting evidence susceptible to more than one rational interpretation must be upheld)