Tricarico v. Colvin
681 F. App'x 98
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Tricarico, a former police officer on disability retirement, applied for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and was denied by an ALJ; the Appeals Council denied review and the district court granted the Commissioner judgment on the pleadings.
- ALJ James Kearns found Tricarico limited to sedentary work with a sit/stand option, restrictions for extreme temperatures, and simple, repetitive tasks due to pain and medication side effects.
- Treating physician Dr. Wilen provided an assessment identifying significant limitations; a consultative examiner, Dr. Aurelio Salon, found largely normal function and activities of daily living.
- The ALJ gave limited weight to Dr. Wilen’s opinion because of internal inconsistencies, conservative treatment, Tricarico’s refusal of recommended surgery, and conflict with Dr. Salon’s findings.
- Tricarico’s credibility was partially credited (pain, limited movement) but discounted as inconsistent with his daily activities (caring for children) and treatment choices; ALJ adopted partial limitations accordingly.
- After the ALJ decision, Tricarico submitted two reports from Dr. Joseph DeFeo (July 2013); the Appeals Council excluded them as not material to the period at issue and the court found no reasonable possibility they would change the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to treating physician | Dr. Wilen’s opinion was well-supported and should be controlling | ALJ: treating opinion conflicted with conservative treatment, other medical opinions, and internal inconsistencies | ALJ permissibly assigned limited weight; substantial evidence supports decision |
| Whether ALJ improperly rejected subjective complaints/credibility | Tricarico’s pain and limitations are disabling and should be credited | ALJ: claimant’s activities, refusal of recommended surgery, and inconsistencies undermine full credibility | ALJ gave partial credit but reasonably limited severity; credibility assessment upheld |
| Whether Appeals Council should have considered post-decision evidence (Dr. DeFeo) | DeFeo’s reports were new, material, and related to the period at issue | Council: reports were from after ALJ decision and not sufficiently tied to the period; cumulative | No reasonable possibility the reports would change outcome; exclusion not reversible error |
| Standard of review for district court’s judgment on the pleadings | (procedural) District court should ensure correct legal standard and substantial evidence review | (procedural) Review is de novo on whether ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and correct law | Court affirmed district court: reviewed ALJ’s ruling for substantial evidence and correct legal standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard of review for district court in social-security cases)
- Jasinski v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2003) (focus of appellate review is the administrative ruling)
- Cage v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 692 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2012) (court does not substitute its judgment for the agency’s)
- Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 2004) (treating physician rule and requirement to give good reasons for weight assigned)
- Diaz v. Shalala, 59 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 1995) (inconsistencies and conflicting opinions can justify not giving controlling weight to treating source)
- Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2010) (credibility evaluation standards for symptom testimony)
- Lisa v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 940 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1991) (remand only when additional evidence could reasonably change the ALJ’s decision)
- Tirado v. Bowen, 842 F.2d 595 (2d Cir. 1988) (standard for materiality of evidence submitted after ALJ decision)