Taylor v. Astrue
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138327
N.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiff Keith Taylor applied for SSI and DIB on March 12, 2007, alleging disability beginning May 17, 2005.
- Applications were denied initially and at a hearing before an ALJ on July 10, 2009, with a subsequent denial issued December 18, 2009.
- Appeals Council denied review on March 4, 2011, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.
- Taylor filed suit in federal court on April 14, 2011, challenging the Commissioner’s denial.
- Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini issued a Report-Recommendation (July 20, 2012) recommending denial of benefits and dismissal of the action; the District Court adopted it.
- The Court ultimately granted the Commissioner’s motion, denied Taylor’s motion, affirmed the denial of benefits, and dismissed the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severity of impairments at step two | Taylor’s degenerative disc disease, knee pain, asthma, vascular disease, and diabetes are severe. | ALJ properly found these impairments non-severe or not all impairments were severe, with only CAD and polysubstance abuse deemed severe. | ALJ’s severity findings supported by substantial evidence. |
| Combined effects and Listings match | ALJ failed to consider combined effects and whether impairments meet/equal Listings 1.02/1.04. | ALJ properly considered combined effects; no impairment met or equaled Listings. | No reversible error; proper analysis of combined impairments and Listings. |
| Record development and consultative/exam | ALJ should have developed the record further or ordered additional examinations (e.g., orthopedic consult). | Given extensive medical record and existing consultative findings, no need for further development; PA not an 'acceptable medical source.' | ALJ did not err in development of the record. |
| Residual Functional Capacity and credibility | RFC does not adequately account for back/knee pain and other ailments; credibility flawed. | RFC supported by substantial evidence; credibility properly assessed with standard factors. | RFC and credibility determinations affirmed; substantial evidence supports denial of benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dixon v. Shalala, 54 F.3d 1019 (2d Cir. 1995) (Listings analysis requires all criteria; impairment must meet/equal listing in full)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1987) (Established five-step framework for disability determinations)
- Rosado v. Sullivan, 805 F. Supp. 147 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (Court defers to ALJ where substantial evidence supports determination)
- Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1990) (Listings-based disability determination requires all criteria to be met)