Shamburger v. Colvin
1:15-cv-00107
W.D.N.Y.Sep 12, 2017Background
- Anthony Shamburger filed for Disability Insurance Benefits (Title II) alleging back, neck, and shoulder pain with an amended onset date of February 20, 2010; application was denied and the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision on March 28, 2013.
- ALJ found Plaintiff insured through December 31, 2015, and suffering severe impairments: discogenic cervical and lumbar spine conditions, radiculopathy, and left shoulder impingement.
- ALJ determined Plaintiff did not meet Listings 1.02 or 1.04 and assessed an RFC for light work with significant restrictions (10-pound lift limit; only occasional postural and upper-extremity push/pull; avoid cold/damp/extremes).
- ALJ found Plaintiff could not perform past relevant work but, relying on VE testimony, could perform other jobs (parking lot attendant, ticket taker, garment marker) and therefore was not disabled.
- Plaintiff challenged the decision arguing the ALJ failed to properly weigh (1) opinions and treatment notes from treating chiropractors and physicians that labeled him "temporarily disabled," and (2) that the ALJ improperly relied on Plaintiff’s own statements about his abilities. The district court affirmed the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ failed to consider/weight treating chiropractor's disability statements | ALJ ignored multiple treatment-plan statements from Dr. Croce that Plaintiff was "total[ly], temporary[ly]" disabled | Chiropractor is not an "acceptable medical source"; ALJ referenced Croce's notes and later Croce released Plaintiff to work with greater RFC than ALJ's limits | Denied: ALJ permissibly discounted/considered chiropractor notes; Croce not controlling and later notes supported ALJ's RFC |
| Whether ALJ erred in rejecting treating physicians' opinions that Plaintiff was temporarily disabled | Drs. Huckell and Fishkin opined Plaintiff was temporarily disabled and ALJ gave those opinions little weight without sufficient explanation | ALJ explained those opinions conflicted with examination findings, conservative treatment, and Plaintiff's activities; disability opinions are reserved to the Commissioner | Denied: ALJ reasonably discounted those opinions; disability determinations are administrative and not controlling |
| Whether ALJ improperly relied on Plaintiff’s own statements about ability to do light work | Plaintiff argues ALJ improperly used his testimony of looking for light work and ability to do "not strenuous" work against him | Defendant/ALJ relied on claimant statements as part of the RFC assessment consistent with regs requiring consideration of claimant’s reports | Denied: ALJ properly considered claimant's statements among other evidence when assessing RFC |
| Whether Commissioner’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and proper legal standards | Plaintiff contended the cumulative record required remand | Commissioner argued substantial evidence supports RFC and step-five finding | Held: Affirmed — substantial evidence and correct legal standards applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard of review: substantial evidence governs district-court review of SSA findings)
- Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770 (2d Cir. 1998) (court must review whole record, weigh evidence that supports and detracts)
- Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1983) (ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence if rationale can be gleaned from the record)
- Diaz v. Shalala, 59 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1995) (chiropractors are not acceptable medical sources and their opinions are not controlling)
- Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (ALJ must consider claimant’s reports of pain and limitations when assessing RFC)
- Byam v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 172 (2d Cir. 2003) (legal conclusions of the Commissioner are reviewed de novo)