Vlossak v. Commissioner of Social Security
6:18-cv-00481
N.D.N.Y.Sep 10, 2019Background
- Plaintiff (born 1969) applied for DIB and SSI (filed May 18, 2015) alleging disability from May 30, 2012 due to right ankle fusion, right knee arthritis, left shoulder impairment, depression, and anxiety.
- ALJ held a hearing April 11, 2017; issued decision Sept. 19, 2017 finding Plaintiff not disabled; Appeals Council denied review.
- ALJ found severe impairments: right ankle post‑fusion, left shoulder post‑op, lumbar spine disorder, depression, and anxiety, but no Listings met or equaled.
- ALJ assessed an RFC for a limited range of light work (inter alia: position change every 30 minutes, max 4 hours standing/walking, no ladders/ropes/scaffolds/crawling, occasional posturals, frequent but not constant left upper‑extremity reaching/handling, limited interaction, no dangerous hazards).
- ALJ gave great weight to consultative examiners (Dr. Lorensen — physical; Dr. Santoro — psychological) and to the state agency reviewer (Dr. Juriga); a vocational expert identified ~143,000 national jobs compatible with the RFC.
- District Court granted Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and affirmed denial of benefits; Plaintiff (pro se) did not file a brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether impairments meet or equal a Listing (Step 3) | Impairments are disabling and meet Listings | Record does not satisfy Listing criteria (ankle ambulation effective; shoulder affected one arm only; spine lacks nerve‑root findings; mental "B/C" criteria not met) | ALJ/ct: No Listing met or equaled; finding supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether RFC is supported by substantial evidence (Step 4) | RFC should be more restrictive based on symptoms and limitations | RFC consistent with consultative exams, VA records, treatment, and Plaintiff’s activities; limitations incorporated into RFC | ALJ/ct: RFC supported by substantial evidence; proper weight given to medical opinions |
| Whether Step Five vocational finding is supported (VE testimony) | VE testimony may be unreliable; ALJ misstated job numbers | VE hypothetical matched RFC; even corrected numbers show a significant national job base | ALJ/ct: VE testimony supported Step Five; ALJ’s misstatement was harmless (143,000 jobs is significant) |
| Whether ALJ adequately developed record for pro se claimant | ALJ failed to fully develop evidence (argued by Plaintiff) | ALJ obtained updated VA records, ordered consultative exams, and probed at hearing; plaintiff testified he had no missing records | ALJ/ct: Record adequately developed given pro se status and evidence obtained |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137 (1987) (validates SSA five‑step evaluation)
- McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2014) (burden shifts to Commissioner at Step Five; VE hypothetical requirements)
- Dumas v. Schweiker, 712 F.2d 1545 (2d Cir. 1983) (VE testimony admissible if hypothetical matches claimant’s limitations)
- Wagner v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 906 F.2d 856 (2d Cir. 1990) (standard of review for ALJ disability findings)
- Moran v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (heightened ALJ duties when claimant is pro se)
- Cichocki v. Astrue, [citation="534 F. App'x 71"] (2d Cir. 2013) (harmless error / ALJ need not mention every factor if rationale gleanable)
- Rutherford v. Schweiker, 685 F.2d 60 (2d Cir. 1982) (credibility and substantial evidence principles)
- Williams v. Bowen, 859 F.2d 255 (2d Cir. 1988) (review of whole record for substantial evidence)
- Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1982) (upholding ALJ findings when supported by record)