Selian v. Astrue
708 F.3d 409
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Selian applied for disability benefits alleging fibromyalgia, shoulder issues, and depression, with onset June 30, 2001.
- ALJ found two severe impairments (degenerative shoulder disease and mood disorder) but did not find fibromyalgia, and ruled RFC for light work.
- Treating physician Dr. Corey diagnosed fibromyalgia; other doctors noted tender points consistent with fibromyalgia.
- ALJ credited consultative exam by Dr. Naughten and disregarded Dr. Corey's fibromyalgia diagnosis and related tender-point findings.
- Non-exertional impairments (pain, reaching limitation, depression) and their impact on Grid use were not fully explored, requiring remand.
- District court affirmed denial; appellate court vacates and remands for weighing treating-physician evidence and potential vocational-evaluator input.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fibromyalgia as a determinable impairment | Selian's fibromyalgia should be medically determinable. | ALJ properly weighed evidence; fibromyalgia not established. | Remand for proper weight and criteria; fibromyalgia must be evaluated per treating-physician evidence. |
| Weight of treating physician's opinion | ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to Dr. Corey's fibromyalgia diagnosis. | ALJ appropriately weighed medical evidence. | ALJ failed to apply Burgess factors; remand to determine proper weight for Corey. |
| Residual Functional Capacity and reliance on Grid | RFC should reflect non-exertional impairments; Grid use requires vocational testimony when non-negligible. | Grids appropriate if non-exertional impairments are negligible. | Reaching limitation and non-negligible non-exertional impairments require vocational expert; remand. |
| Reaching limitation analysis | Reaching limitation may be non-negligible and affect work ability. | ALJ did not adequately evaluate reaching impact. | ALJ erred by not determining negligibility; remand to assess reaching and need for VE. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (treating-physician weight and diagnostic criteria must be considered)
- Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2003) (treating-diagnosis credibility and consistency)
- Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 1999) (requirement of good reasons when not crediting treating opinions)
- Cruz v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1990) (reliance on single examination caution)
- Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 2010) (non-exertional impairments must be considered; Grid use requires VE)
- Saiz v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 397 (10th Cir. 2004) (reaching limitations may preclude Grid reliance; require VE)
- Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303 (2d Cir. 2009) (burden-shift and residual functional capacity framework)
- Williams v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2000) (benefits only where total disability persuasive on record)
- Vega v. Harris, 636 F.2d 900 (2d Cir. 1981) (binding fibromyalgia criteria for ALJs)