Wilber T. v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York reviews a denial of supplemental security income under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court denies the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and grants the Commissioner’s motion, concluding that the administrative law judge applied the correct standards and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. The opinion addresses the evaluation of medical opinions, residual functional capacity, a sit/stand option, work-related limitations, social interaction restrictions, and off-task and attendance limitations.

Holdings

1. The ALJ properly evaluated the opinions under the applicable supportability and consistency factors and reasonably found them unpersuasive because they were inconsistent with objective orthopedic findings, treatment records, mental-health records, and, in Dr. Gashinsky's case, Plaintiff's subjective complaints.
2. The ALJ's failure, if any, to expressly discuss the alleged need to change positions every thirty minutes was harmless and did not warrant remand.
3. Substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff could perform a restricted range of light work and could remain on task and maintain attendance at levels consistent with competitive employment.
4. The ALJ's social-interaction limitations were supported by substantial evidence.
5. The ALJ was not required to separately discuss every issue addressed in Dr. Gashinsky's opinion, and the ALJ sufficiently explained why the opinion was unpersuasive; therefore, the omission did not require remand.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the ALJ properly evaluated the opinions of CRNP Cywinski and Dr. Gashinsky under the supportability and consistency factors.
2. Whether the ALJ erred by failing to expressly address Plaintiff's alleged need for a sit/stand option and a change of position every thirty minutes.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ's determination that Plaintiff could perform the demands of light work, including staying on task and maintaining attendance.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ's limitations on Plaintiff's social interaction.
5. Whether the ALJ erred by not expressly discussing portions of Dr. Gashinsky's opinion concerning time off-task and absenteeism.

Disposition

affirmed