Sech v. Commissioner of Social Security
7:13-cv-01356
N.D.N.Y.Mar 30, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Dawn Marie Sech applied for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) alleging disability beginning August 1, 2009; application denied and ALJ issued an adverse decision after a hearing; Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found certain impairments non-severe (kidney problems, migraines) and omitted explicit severity findings for bursitis, arthritis, and anxiety.
- State consultative examiner Dr. Roberto Rivera examined Sech and issued an opinion noting incomplete information but identifying nephrolithiasis and chronic migraine history; ALJ gave significant weight to Rivera and adopted no exertional limitations in the RFC.
- Treatment records and hearing testimony documented ongoing kidney issues (including nephrolithiasis), chronic migraines treated with Maxalt, and diagnoses/treatment for anxiety (Lexapro, Effexor).
- Plaintiff challenged the ALJ’s step-two severity findings, RFC formulation, credibility assessment, and step-five reliance on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines; the Commissioner defended the ALJ decision and argued any step-two errors were harmless.
- District court reversed and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), finding material legal errors at step two and that those errors were not harmless because the RFC did not clearly account for all impairments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step-two severity determination for kidney problems and migraines | ALJ misstated the record and wrongly found these non-severe despite post-2010 treatment notes and exam diagnosis of nephrolithiasis and documented chronic migraines | Any step-two errors were harmless because ALJ proceeded through the sequential analysis | Court: ALJ erred on factual record (missed/incorrect citations) and legal error in discounting migraines for lack of objective tests; errors not harmless because RFC did not clearly consider these impairments |
| Failure to assign severity to bursitis, arthritis, and anxiety | ALJ failed to address these impairments despite medical treatment notes and psychiatric medication | Harmless or would not change outcome (Commissioner addressed only bursitis briefly) | Court: ALJ erred by not making severity findings for these impairments; error not harmless because RFC discussion omits them |
| RFC formulation and reliance on consultative examiner | RFC failed to perform function-by-function analysis and ignored limitations from the impairments; ALJ relied entirely on Dr. Rivera who noted incomplete information | ALJ permissibly gave weight to consultative exam and other evidence to find no exertional limits | Court: Because ALJ relied on an incomplete consultative opinion and did not discuss all impairments, RFC is unsupported; remand required for proper RFC analysis considering all impairments |
| Credibility and step-five reliance on Medical-Vocational Guidelines | ALJ improperly assessed Sech’s credibility and erred in relying on the grids at step five | Commissioner defends ALJ’s credibility findings and step-five analysis | Court: Declined to decide these remaining issues because they may be affected by the remand; left for ALJ on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- No officially reported (hard-copy reporter) cases are cited in the opinion; the decision principally relies on unpublished/WL authorities and Social Security regulations as applied to the record (the court’s analysis and remand are based on the facts and legal standards for severity, RFC, and harmless-error principles).