Simms v. Commissioner of Social Secuity
1:16-cv-00534
E.D.N.YSep 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Sabrina Simms applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits alleging onset in February 2012 (related injuries from a June 15, 2011 workplace assault) and claimed neck, right shoulder/arm/hand injuries, chronic headaches, and depression.
- Medical records show cervical disc bulges/herniations (C2–C7) and right carpal tunnel; multiple treating providers recommended conservative care, activity restrictions, and carpal tunnel surgery (performed Aug. 2013).
- Consultative and agency reviewers found limited cervical range of motion, moderate carpal tunnel, and mild-to-moderate cervical disease; a medical expert testified to an RFC consistent with light work (no overhead reaching with right arm, lifting limited to 20/10 lbs, sitting/standing/walking up to 6 hours).
- ALJ held hearings (Mar. 2014; continued June 2015), developed the record (issued subpoenas, solicited additional records), and credited consultative/agency opinions over some worker’s-compensation evaluations and chiropractor notes.
- ALJ concluded Plaintiff was not disabled: severe impairments were cervical degenerative disc disease and right carpal tunnel, RFC = light work, no listing met, and jobs existed in national economy; Appeals Council denied review and district court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did ALJ adequately develop the record? | ALJ failed to obtain complete treating records and thus did not fully develop the record. | ALJ and counsel made reasonable, repeated efforts (subpoenas, follow-ups); record contained treating and consultative opinions. | ALJ adequately developed the record. |
| Was the ALJ’s RFC supported by substantial evidence? | Plaintiff’s reported limitations (difficulty lifting, limited sitting/standing/walking, daily headaches) warrant greater restrictions. | Medical evidence and testimony (consultative exam, treating notes, medical expert) support a light-work RFC; claimant testimony inconsistent. | RFC for light work is supported by substantial evidence. |
| Did the ALJ properly weigh treating and other medical source opinions? | Worker’s compensation treating providers and chiropractor opinions should control. | WC opinions use different standards and chiropractor is not an ‘‘acceptable medical source’’ under SSA rules; ALJ properly gave them limited weight and relied on treating/consultative physicians and medical expert. | ALJ’s weighing was proper. |
| Was the credibility assessment valid? | Plaintiff’s subjective pain testimony shows disabling limitations. | Testimony inconsistent with activities of daily living and medical record; ALJ applied regulatory symptom-evaluation factors. | Credibility finding was reasonable and supported by record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se filings are to be liberally construed)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (court should read pro se complaint to raise strongest arguments)
- Moran v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (district court reviews ALJ for correct legal standards and substantial evidence)
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (substantial evidence standard explained)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (ALJ must affirmatively develop the record)
- Lamay v. Comm’r of Social Sec., 562 F.3d 503 (2d Cir. 2009) (ALJ’s affirmative duty to develop record in non-adversarial proceedings)