847 F. Supp. 2d 513
W.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiff Selvi Tankisi filed Jan 30, 2007 for DIB and SSI, alleging disability since Mar 9, 2006 due to dizzy spells, arm weakness, and inability to sit/stand/walk for extended periods.
- Initial denial followed; hearing conducted via videoconference on Jun 16, 2009 before ALJ Ettinger with Turkish interpreter.
- ALJ issued unfavorable decision on Jul 20, 2009; Appeals Council denied review on May 21, 2010, making the decision final.
- Action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); both parties moved for summary judgment; court granted Commissioner and denied plaintiff, dismissing the complaint.
- ALJ applied the five-step sequential evaluation, found a severe combination (physical impairments plus adjustment disorder), determined RFC to light work with restrictions, and found VE could identify past relevant work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpreter adequacy at hearing | Tankisi lacked a qualified interpreter, or translation impaired record. | Interpreter and proceedings were adequate; no denial of a qualified interpreter. | No reversible error; interpreter adequate and record fully developed. |
| Record development of cognitive functioning | ALJ should have developed record given consult examiner's note of borderline-to-deficient cognition. | Record sufficient; no need to solicit further evidence. | No remand; ALJ properly concluded cognitive findings did not alter RFC. |
| Headaches/dizziness as severe impairments | Frequent headaches/dizziness during 2006–2009 should be deemed severe. | Record did not show substantial impact on RFC. | No error; headaches/dizziness not shown to affect RFC significantly. |
| Credibility of subjective complaints | Plaintiff's statements about symptoms were credible and should be reflected in RFC. | Plaintiff's complaints inconsistent with medical evidence and daily functioning. | Credibility findings supported by substantial evidence; RFC and past work finding upheld. |
| RFC and ability to perform past work | RFC limitations may preclude past work; record incomplete on non-exertional limits. | RFC supported by medical evidence; VE testified to ability to perform past work. | RFC supported; plaintiff could perform past relevant work as sewing machine operator and sedentary assembly. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467 (Supreme Court 1986) (five-step evaluation framework governs disability determinations)
- Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1999) (burden shifting to Commissioner at fifth step)
- Bapp v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 601 (2d Cir. 1986) (special-technical steps in disability analysis)
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (Supreme Court 1971) (substantial evidence standard in SSA review)
- Tejada v. Apfel, 167 F.3d 770 (2d Cir. 1999) (weighing evidence from both sides in substantial-evidence review)
- Melville v. Apfel, 198 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 1999) (court may consider entire record in disability review)
- Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578 (2d Cir. 2002) (court expects rational, supported findings; not de novo review)