Ubiles v. Astrue
6:11-cv-06340
W.D.N.Y.Jul 2, 2012Background
- Jurisdiction: Western District of New York reviews SSA denial of SSI under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c).
- Plaintiff Ubiles filed August 14, 2006; ALJ denied Jan 22, 2009; Appeals Council denied May 6, 2011; final decision lies with Commissioner.
- Claim: disability due to chronic back pain with depression and migraines; alleged SSI disability since May 2006.
- ALJ concluded Plaintiff could perform sedentary work with limitations; concluded no disability.
- Record developed post-hearing; missing medical records and lack of treating-physician function-by-function assessment.
- Court grants judgment on the pleadings for remand due to legal errors in record development and RFC assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to develop the record and treating-physician rule | ALJ failed to obtain Dr. Laroche’s function-by-function assessment and - despite noticing missing records - did not recontact. | (Not explicitly stated in text) | Remand for proper development and evaluation of treating-source evidence. |
| RFC determination supported by substantial evidence | ALJ failed to perform function-by-function RFC analysis; relied on vague consultative opinion. | (Not explicitly stated in text) | Remand to permit proper function-by-function RFC assessment. |
| Missing medical records and record gaps | Multiple providers’ records and consultative reports were not in the file; ALJ did not obtain them. | (Not explicitly stated in text) | Remand to obtain complete medical records and evaluate evidence. |
| Credibility analysis error | ALJ impermissibly tied credibility to his own RFC rather than applying SSR 96-7p factors. | (Not explicitly stated in text) | Remand to properly assess credibility under SSR 96-7p. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (treating-physician rule and record development)
- Hilsdorf v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 724 F. Supp.2d 330 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (RFC must be supported by function-by-function analysis)
- Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1996) (ALJ must develop the record and obtain treating-source evidence)
- Cruz v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1990) (consulting physicians should not unduly control RFC without solid basis)
- Bluvband v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 886 (2d Cir. 1984) (avoid relying solely on consultative reports)
- Sanchez v. Barnhart, 329 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (ALJ must fill evidentiary gaps; absence of reports cannot justify denial)