Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York reviewed the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Germese James’s disability benefits claim. The court denied James’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion, concluding that the administrative law judge properly evaluated the medical evidence and that the residual functional capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence.
Holdings
- An ALJ may find a medical opinion persuasive in part and unpersuasive in part when the determination is supported by the medical examinations, the claimant's activities, and the record as a whole.
- An ALJ satisfies the applicable regulations when the ALJ explicitly evaluates the supportability and consistency of a medical opinion and explains the evidentiary basis for the persuasiveness determination.
- The ALJ's sedentary-work RFC, including the specified postural, reaching, sitting, off-task, and absenteeism limitations, was supported by substantial evidence and was free of legal error.
- The ALJ was not required to recontact Dr. Checo merely because the ALJ found part of his opinion unpersuasive; recontact is required when a consultative-examination report is inadequate or incomplete, not whenever the ALJ disagrees with it.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to a closed period of disability because the evidence did not show that any disabling limitations lasted for the required twelve-month period.
Questions Presented
- Whether the ALJ properly evaluated and partially credited the medical opinions of examining physician Dr. Checo.
- Whether the ALJ's residual functional capacity determination was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to a closed period of disability based on limitations following her surgeries.
- Whether the ALJ was required to recontact Dr. Checo after finding portions of his opinion unpersuasive.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (10)
- Melville v. Apfel, 198 F.3d 45, 52 (2d Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Biestek v. Berryhill, 587 U.S. 97, 102-03, 108 (2019)(followed)
- Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 175-76 (2d Cir. 2013)(followed)
- Carter v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2023 WL 3997262, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 14, 2023)(followed)
- Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Schillo v. Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64, 70, 78 (2d Cir. 2022)(followed)
- Matta v. Astrue, 508 F. App'x 53, 56 (2d Cir. 2013)(followed)
- Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Ayala v. Kijakazi, 620 F. Supp. 3d 6, 30 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…