Case Information
*1 15 ‐ 1845 ‐ cv v. Colvin
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 2007 IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At stated term United States Court Appeals Second Circuit, held Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, City New York, th day October, two thousand sixteen.
PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges ,
EDWARD R. KORMAN,
District Judge.* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ GIULIA BOTTA,
Plaintiff ‐ Appellant , No. ‐ ‐ cv
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant ‐ Appellee.**
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ * Judge Edward R. Korman, United States Court Eastern District New York, sitting designation.
** The Clerk directed amend official caption conform caption above.
FOR APPELLANT: S ARAH H. B OHR , Bohr & Harrington, LLC, Atlantic Beach, FL; Jeffrey Delott, Law Offices of Jeffrey Delott, Jericho, NY. APPELLEE: V ARUNI N ELSON (Arthur Swerdloff,
Dara A. Olds, on the brief ), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Robert L. Capers, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.
Appeal from a judgment of United States District Court Eastern District of New York (Sandra J. Feuerstein, Judge ).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED judgment District Court AFFIRMED.
Giulia Botta appeals a judgment United States District Eastern New York (Feuerstein, J.), which dismissed complaint seeking disability insurance benefits under Social Security Act granted judgment pleadings Commissioner Social Security. note outset that, in lieu pursuing case in district court, could have obtained re ‐ adjudication claim different Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) pursuant settlement Padro Astrue , No. Civ. 1788, WL (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 2013) (Amon, J.)—a class action complaining *3 systematic bias ALJs the Queens office of the Social Security Administration (including the ALJ who entered the decision which Botta appeals). Under the settlement’s terms, Botta had to request this relief within sixty days after receiving notice of her right to it. Her prior attorney, however, made no such request; and although her current counsel indicated oral argument that she has since asked Commissioner new hearing, the request was rejected. Under these circumstances, we turn to merits her appeal.
On appeal, argues that ALJ who adjudicated benefits claim did not properly credit Botta’s subjective complaints and did not accord sufficient weight to opinion one Botta’s treating physicians. assume parties’ familiarity with facts and record prior proceedings, which we refer only as necessary explain our decision affirm.
Botta’s contention that ALJ did not properly evaluate subjective complaints without merit. While partially crediting Botta’s complaints pain, ALJ did not fully credit Botta’s statements “concerning intensity, persistence and limiting effects” symptoms because (1) it was undisputed objective medical tests did not display compression nerve roots, (2) multiple examining doctors did not observe significant atrophy or weakness, *4 (3) record contained testimony from medical expert that Botta’s complaints were inconsistent with objective findings as well as testimony from herself that she was not receiving medical treatment symptoms October 2003. The ALJ set forth enough “specific reasons” supported by substantial evidence to garner deference. See Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 420 (2d Cir. 2013).
also reject Botta’s argument that ALJ did not give sufficient weight opinion one treating physicians, Dr. Robert Duca. See Shaw v. Chater, F.3d 126, (2d Cir. 2000). As ALJ found, examinations two other physicians, objective medical tests, and Botta’s history conservative treatment were all inconsistent with Dr. Duca’s opinion. And ALJ properly relied testimony two medical experts who reviewed Dr. Duca’s records and independently concluded records lacked specificity and findings necessary support his opinion. Weighing this body contrary evidence against length Dr. Duca’s treating relationship and his status as an orthopedist, ALJ “applied substance treating physician rule” provided “good reasons” decision not give Dr. Duca’s opinion controlling or significant weight. Halloran Barnhart, F.3d 32–33 (2d Cir. 2004).
1 have considered remaining arguments conclude they are 2 without merit. For foregoing reasons, judgment 3 AFFIRMED.
4 THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk Court 6