Silvers v. Colvin
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159804
W.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiff Helen Silvers applied for SSDI and SSI (protective filing June 2007) alleging disability from seizures, depression, diabetes, and related conditions with onset April 30, 2004; initial denials and two ALJ hearings followed.
- ALJ Bruce Mazzarella (two hearings) found plaintiff’s impairments severe but concluded they did not meet Listings and assessed an RFC for a restricted range of light work (no heights, machinery, driving; simple, routine, low-stress work).
- ALJ relied on treating neurologist notes (Dr. Samie), consultative examiners (Drs. Dave, Baskin), a state agency reviewer, and VE testimony that plaintiff could perform past housekeeping work.
- Treating PCP Dr. James Matthews completed a PRFC (Oct. 24, 2011) stating seizures and medication sedation would constantly interfere with attention/concentration; severe work limitations and inability to sustain full workday.
- ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Matthews’s PRFC and to Dr. Hill’s earlier psychiatric opinion, favoring other consultative and review opinions and a 2007 neurosurgery report; Appeals Council denied review and district court review followed.
- District court found the ALJ failed to apply correct legal standards in weighing the treating physician’s opinion, concluded Dr. Matthews’s opinion was entitled to controlling weight, and remanded solely for calculation of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight to treating physician opinion | Matthews’ PRFC reflects well-supported, longitudinal opinion that seizures constantly impair attention/concentration and preclude full-time work | ALJ reasonably discounted Matthews for inconsistency with consultative exams, Matthews’ earlier clarification letter, and a 2007 neurosurgery assessment | Court: ALJ failed to give "good reasons"; Matthews’ opinion was supported and not inconsistent with record and should have controlling weight |
| Credibility/use of plaintiff’s self‑reports | Plaintiff’s symptom reports corroborated by treating and consultative providers; ALJ improperly dismissed them | Commissioner contends ALJ permissibly resolved credibility conflicts and relied on other substantial evidence | Court: ALJ’s adverse credibility and selective weighing amounted to improper substitution of his judgment for medical opinion; record supports disabling limitations |
| RFC and step‑4 past work finding | RFC did not account for treating opinion that plaintiff cannot sustain regular work; past-work finding thus defective | Commissioner relies on VE testimony and other medical opinions supporting RFC for light work | Court: RFC unsupported because ALJ improperly discounted treating opinion; remand for benefits rather than further proceedings |
| Remedy (remand for further proceedings vs. benefits) | Argues delay and substantial record support award of benefits | Govt would have preferred remand for further proceedings | Court: Exercising discretion, awarded benefits and remanded solely for calculation due to lengthy pendency and strong record support for disability |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (establishes substantial-evidence standard)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (substantial-evidence review of administrative findings)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (treating physician rule and allocation of burdens)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (ALJ must give good reasons for treating source weight; remand guidance)
- Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1998) (ALJ cannot arbitrarily substitute own judgment for treating physician)
- Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 2002) (deference to Commissioner on evidentiary conflicts)