Texidor v. Social Security Admin
3:10-cv-00701
D. Conn.Apr 11, 2011Background
- Texidor applied for SSI on Dec 10, 2007; SSA denied benefits initially and on reconsideration.
- ALJ Dolan held a hearing Oct 20, 2009; vocational expert testified; Texidor represented by counsel.
- ALJ determined Texidor not disabled, found severe impairments: polysubstance abuse, depression, anxiety, PTSD, left-eye blindness post cocaine-induced CVA.
- RFC found to allow full range of work with nonexertional limits: avoid fumes/dust/odors/gases, no peripheral vision, simple routine tasks, fleeting public contact.
- Court remanded to re-evaluate severity of impairments and RFC, considering combinations of impairments and episodes of decompensation.
- Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by not fully evaluating all impairments singly and in combination, and by misapplying the record to RFC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ erred by not adequately considering combined impairments | Texidor argues the ALJ failed to assess all impairments singly and in combination. | Texidor contends the ALJ reasonably evaluated the impairments and their effects. | Remand required to assess all impairments together in RFC. |
| Whether Texidor's mental impairments meet Listings 12.04 or 12.06 | Texidor asserts listings criteria met for mood/anxiety disorders. | Browne/Hanson/others found only mild/moderate limitations; not meeting listings. | ALJ's step-3 findings require remand to reassess mental impairments against listings. |
| Whether the ALJ properly accounted for episodes of decompensation in RFC | Texidor argues decompensation episodes were not accounted in RFC or VE hypothetical. | Record supported moderate limitations; decompensation not adequately detailed. | Remand to include full frequency/intensity of decompensation in RFC and hypothetical. |
| Whether anemia, asthma, and other non-severe impairments were properly treated in the RFC | ALJ failed to assess non-severe impairments and their combination with severe ones. | Defendant argues substantial evidence supports limited consideration; harmless error possible. | Remand for comprehensive RFC considering all impairments and their interactions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1998) (substantial evidence standard and five-step framework)
- Dixon v. Shalala, 54 F.3d 1019 (2d Cir. 1995) (step-two severity screening; de minimis claims)
- Yuckert v. Bowen, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (establishes sequential evaluation framework)
- Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (vocational evidence when Grid does not apply)
- Bapp v. Bowen, 802 F.2d 601 (2d Cir. 1986) (nonexertional impairments and Grid limitations)