Scott v. Astrue
1:10-cv-09481
S.D.N.Y.Mar 14, 2012Background
- Scott applied for disability benefits on May 22, 2008, alleging diabetes, neuropathy, gout, depression, and chest pain.
- ALJ Nisnewitz denied benefits on January 22, 2010, finding a disability but that substance use was a contributing factor; Appeals Council denied review October 2010.
- Scott testified at an December 2, 2009 hearing about limited walking, pain, need for a cane, and inability to work full-time.
- Medical evidence includes long-term treating notes from Drs. Thenor and Rameshwar (2008–2009) showing significant physical/psychological impairment; consultative opinions from Revan and Bougakov (one-time exams) present conflicting views.
- ALJ gave significant weight to Revan and Bougakov, but less to Thenor and Rameshwar, and concluded substance use contributed to disability but cessation would allow light work.
- Magistrate judge recommends remand to reassess treating physicians’ opinions and determine whether impairments are materially caused by substance use, with fuller reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the treating physician rule was properly applied | Scott argues Thenor and Rameshwar were entitled to controlling weight. | Astrue argues their opinions were not controlling due to lack of objective support. | ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to treating physicians. |
| Whether substance use was properly treated as a material contributing factor | Scott contends substance use did not drive impairments; treating physicians observed disability regardless. | ALJ considered substance use as contributing factor. | Remand required to re-evaluate materiality of substance use. |
| Whether Colby’s opinion within adjudication period was properly ignored | Colby’s assessment supports Scott’s limitations and should be considered. | Colby’s opinion was rendered outside adjudication period and thus deprioritized. | Error to treat Colby’s opinion as outside the period; remand should reassess weight. |
| Whether the ALJ relied on one-shot consultative opinions over treating sources | Treating physicians’ six-month observations should prevail over one-time consults. | Consultative opinions are sufficient when well-supported. | Substantial error in overvaluing consultatives relative to treating physicians. |
| Whether remand is appropriate to resolve gaps in the record | Record lacks clear causal link between impairments and substance use. | Record supports non-disability when substance use considered. | Remand to comprehensively reconsider disability with proper weight to treating physicians. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (role of correct legal standard in disability review)
- Richmond v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court (1971)) (substantial evidence standard in SSA review)
- Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 1998) (need for good reasons when discounting treating physician)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 2004) (treating physician factors and weight standards)
- Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1998) (burden shifting in fifthstep—other work evidence)
- Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1983) (evaluation of RFC and record review standards)