Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Agapito v. Colivn

United States District Court, S.D. New York

February 20, 2014

STEPHEN A. AGAPITO, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAUL A. CROTTY, District Judge.

Plaintiff Stephen A. Agapito ("Plaintiff') brings this action pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act ("SSA"), challenging the Commissioner of Social Security's (the "Commissioner") decision to deny Plaintiff Disability Insurance Benefits ("DID").[1] Both parties cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). On August 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman issued a Report & Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court grant the Plaintiff's motion, deny the Commissioner's motion, and remand the action for further administrative proceedings. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Pitman held that Administrative Law Judge Robert Gonzalez ("ALJ Gonzalez") erred by (1) not explicitly addressing the weight given to Doctor Mary Dore's ("Dr. Dore") and Doctor Paolo Ampil's ("Dr. Ampil") medical opinions and (2) improperly assessing the Plaintiff's credibility regarding his complaints of pain.

On September 20, 2013, the Commissioner filed timely objections to the R&R, arguing that both holdings should not be adopted. Having reviewed the R&R and the Commissioner's objections, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Pitman's R&R in its entirety.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

This Court reviews the administrative record and the ALJ's decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence and relies upon correct legal standards. Pollard v. Halter, 377 F.3d 183, 188 (2d Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted). This Court must defer to an ALJ's findings that are based on substantial evidence, Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir. 1999), and accept an ALJ's factual determinations where the administrative record supports disparate findings, Quinones v. Charter, 117 F.3d 29, 36 (2d Cir. 1997).

A district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a timely objection is made to the magistrate judge's recommendations, the court is required to review the contested portions de novo. Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F.Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). The court "may adopt those portions of the [R&R] to which no objections have been made and which are not facially erroneous." La Torres v. Walker, 216 F.Supp.2d 157, 159 (S.D.N.Y 2000).

II. Analysis

A. The ALJ Did Not Adeqnately Develop the Record in Reviewing the Medical Opinions

Prior to making a disability determination, an AU must develop a claimant's medical history and make every reasonable effort to get medical reports from his or her own medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(d). Similarly, "[a]n ALJ is required to give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a claimant's treating physician when that opinion: (1) concerns the nature and severity of an impairment; (2) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (3) is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record." Meadors v. Astrue, 370 F.Appx. 179, 182 (2d Cir. 2010). Where a treating source's opinion is not given controlling weight, the proper weight accorded by the ALJ depends upon several factors, including: "(i) the frequency of exanlination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion's consistency with the record as a whole; and (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist." Clark v. Comm'r of Social Sec., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When the ALJ has failed to affirmatively develop the record, remand to the Commissioner for further development is appropriate. See Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 1996).

ALJ Gonzalez failed to adequately develop the record as to his review of Dr. Dore's medical opinion. In deciding that "Dr. Dore's opinion is not fully persuasive, " ALJ Gonzalez offered only the following:

Dore... opined that the claimant could not do heavy lifting, bending, stooping, crouching or working in dusty environments. In the same note, Dr. Dore stated that the claimant's pain had improved within a few months with medication only. Dr. Dore further noted that the claimant had mild asthma when he has bronchitis, ' but there are no documented asthma attacks in the clinical record.

Tr. 25 (citations omitted). As an initial matter, the Court cannot conduct a meaningful review of ALJ Gonzalez's opinion because he did not specify the weight he afforded to Dr. Dore's opinion. The description "not fully persuasive" will not do. Even if ALJ Gonzalez had described Dr. Dore's opinion as not controlling, he was still obligated to review the regulatory factors to describe how he reached that conclusion. See Pimenta v. Barnhart, No. 05 Civ. 5698, 2006 WL 2356145, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2006) (remanding case where "the AU did not discuss [the treating physician's] qualifications, or the length, frequency, nature, and extent of his relationship with the plaintiff, )[2] Similarly, ALJ Gonzalez was required to provide "good reasons" for not giving Dr. Dore's opinion controlling weight. See Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32-33 (2d Cir. 2004). Instead, he merely remarked that Plaintiff's pain had improved with medication and that he had no documented asthma attacks. See Tr. 25. Such slight inconsistencies in the record do not constitute "substantial evidence, " see Meadors, 370 F.Appx. at 182, particularly when other medical opinions support Dr. Dore's opinion. Furthermore, if ALJ Gonzalez believed that Dr. Dore's opinion was inconsistent with other reports, he should have sought clarification - not discredit Dr. Dore's opinion completely. See C.F.R. § 404.1512(e) (stating that when the evidence received is inadequate, the ALJ must "recontact [the] treating physician... or other medical source to determine whether the additional information... is readily available"); see also Calzada v. Astrue, 753 F.Supp.2d 250, 269 (S.D.N.Y.2010).

ALJ Gonzalez's review of Dr. Ampil's medical opinion was inadequate for substantially the same reviews. ALJ Gonzalez gave Dr. Ampil's opinion ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.