Filed: Jul. 30, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 13-1941 Mariani v. Colvin 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER 5 6 RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL 7 EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER 8 JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE 9 OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1. 10 WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH 11 THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX 12 OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH
Summary: 13-1941 Mariani v. Colvin 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER 5 6 RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL 7 EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER 8 JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE 9 OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1. 10 WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH 11 THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX 12 OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH T..
More
13-1941
Mariani v. Colvin
1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
3
4 AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER
5
6 RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL
7 EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER
8 JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE
9 OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.
10 WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH
11 THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
12 OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY
13 ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY
14 OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
15
16 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
17 Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
18 Square, in the City of New York, on the 30th day of July, two thousand fourteen.
19
20 PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
21 DENNY CHIN,
22 CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
23 Circuit Judges.
24 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
25
26 MICHAEL MARIANI,
27
28 Plaintiff‐Appellant,
29
30 v. No. 13‐1941
31
32 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, COMMISSIONER SOCIAL
33 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
34
35 Defendant‐Appellee.
36
37 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
38
39
1
13-1941
Mariani v. Colvin
1
2 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: CHRISTOPHER J. BOWES, ESQ., LAW OFFICE OF
3 CHRISTOPHER BOWES, Shoreham, New
4 York.
5
6 APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: NATALIE N. KUEHLER (John E. Gura, Jr. and
7 Emily E. Daughtry, on the brief), Assistant
8 United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara,
9 United States Attorney for the Southern
10 District of New York, New York, New
11 York.
12
13 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
14 Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.).
15 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
16 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is
17 VACATED and the case is REMANDED with instructions.
18 Plaintiff‐appellant Michael Mariani appeals from the district court’s
19 judgment entered March 22, 2013, upholding the Commissioner of Social
20 Security’s (the “Commissioner”) denial of disability benefits under the Social
21 Security Act (“SSA”). The judgment was based on the district court’s order
22 granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant‐appellee
23 Commissioner. Mariani v. Astrue, No. 12 Civ. 1282 (S.D.N.Y. March 20, 2013).
2
13-1941
Mariani v. Colvin
1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
2 history of the case, as well as the issues presented for review.
3 “[W]e conduct a plenary review of the administrative record to determine
4 if there is substantial evidence, considering the record as a whole, to support the
5 Commissioner’s decision and if the correct legal standards have been applied.”
6 Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks
7 omitted). “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla. It means such
8 relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
9 conclusion.” Moran v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 108, 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
10 marks omitted).
11 Under the SSA, “disability” means an “inability to engage in any
12 substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
13 mental impairment . . . which has lasted or can be expected to last for a
14 continuous period of not less than 12 months.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). “The
15 impairment must be of ‘such severity that [the claimant] is not only unable to do
16 his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work
17 experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in
3
13-1941
Mariani v. Colvin
1 the national economy.’” Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131‐32 (2d Cir. 2000)
2 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A)). “Pursuant to regulations promulgated by the
3 Commissioner, a five‐step sequential evaluation process is used to determine
4 whether the claimant’s condition meets the Act’s definition of disability.”
5 Burgess, 537 F.3d at 120 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520).
6 [I]f the Commissioner determines (1) that the claimant
7 is not working, (2) that he has a severe impairment, (3)
8 that the impairment is not one that conclusively
9 requires a determination of disability, and (4) that the
10 claimant is not capable of continuing in his prior type of
11 work, the Commissioner must find him disabled if (5)
12 there is not another type of work the claimant can do.
13
14 Draegert v. Barnhart, 311 F.3d 468, 472 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
15 omitted).
16 Where, as here, a claimant’s impairments are not per se disabling under
17 SSA regulations, the Commissioner must ascertain the claimant’s residual
18 functional capacity (“RFC”). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). “A claimantʹs RFC is
19 ‘the most [he] can still do despite [his] limitations.’” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46,
20 49 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §
4
13-1941
Mariani v. Colvin
1 416.945(a)(1)). This RFC is then used at step four to determine whether the
2 claimant can perform his past work and at step five to determine if the claimant
3 can perform other available work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The claimant bears
4 the burden of proof as to the first four steps. Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 176
5 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). At step five, the Commissioner has the “limited
6 burden” of “show[ing] that there is work in the national economy that the
7 claimant can do.” Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 306 (2d Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
8 The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Mariani retained a RFC
9 to “perform fine manipulation/fingering 50% of the time with his dominant right
10 upper extremity during a typical work day.” Social Security Administration
11 Administrative Record at 13, Mariani v. Astrue, No. 12 Civ. 1282 (S.D.N.Y. March
12 22, 2013). The appellant contends that this finding and the consequent decision
13 that he could perform certain sedentary occupations, and thus was not disabled
14 under the SSA, were not supported by substantial evidence. We agree because
15 the record provides no evidence for the ALJ’s specific finding that Mariani could
16 use his dominant right hand for fifty percent of the workday. We therefore
17 remand to the ALJ for further factfinding as to the extent of Mariani’s hand
5
13-1941
Mariani v. Colvin
1 impairment and whether there are jobs in the economy he can perform with that
2 degree of impairment.
3 Mariani argues that the ALJ should have given controlling weight to his
4 treating physician’s opinion that he had “no use” of his right hand. Id. at 404. A
5 treating physician’s opinion need not be given controlling weight where it is not
6 well‐supported or is not consistent with the opinions of other medical experts
7 that are sufficiently substantial evidence to undermine the opinion of the treating
8 physician. See Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128. Having found there was substantial
9 evidence that was inconsistent with Mariani’s treating physician’s opinion, the
10 ALJ did not err in declining to give his opinion controlling weight. However, the
11 ALJ was not then permitted to “arbitrarily substitute his own judgment for
12 competent medical opinion.” McBrayer v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 712
13 F.2d 795, 799 (2d Cir. 1983); see id. (“[W]hile an administrative law judge is free to
14 resolve issues of credibility as to lay testimony or to choose between properly
15 submitted medical opinions, he is not free to set his own expertise against that of
16 a physician who testified before him.” (internal quotation marks omitted));
17 Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75, 80‐81 (2d Cir. 1998).
6
13-1941
Mariani v. Colvin
1 Rejecting the treating physician’s conclusion that Mariani could not use his
2 hand at all, the ALJ found that he could use his hand fifty percent of the time.
3 There is not substantial evidence in the record for this alternative conclusion.
4 Admittedly, the evidence of the severity of Mariani’s hand impairment is
5 inconsistent, ranging from total loss of function to the consulting physician’s
6 conclusion that Mariani’s hand and finger dexterity were “intact.” Social
7 Security Administration Administrative Record at 328, Mariani v. Astrue, No. 12
8 Civ. 1282 (S.D.N.Y. March 22, 2013). Medical evidence at both ends of the
9 spectrum, however, is not substantial evidence for a finding that the extent of the
10 disability is fifty percent capacity. Cf. Ferraris v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 582, 586‐87 (2d
11 Cir. 1984) (holding that where there was no consensus among physicians’
12 opinions, the ALJ should have set forth specific findings of exactly what the
13 claimant could do, “especially with reference to his ability to sit and for how
14 long”). There is no other evidence in the administrative record that provides
15 substantial evidence for the ALJ’s fifty percent finding.1
1 In addition to the opinions of Mariani’s treating physician and the consulting physician, the
record includes: (1) Dr. Walia’s diagnosis that the appellant “clearly has complex regional pain
syndrome [‘CRPS’] involving his right hand that seems to be spreading to involve lower
forearm now,” Social Security Administration Administrative Record at 396, Mariani v. Astrue,
7
13-1941
Mariani v. Colvin
1 The appellant’s own description of his limitation does not provide
2 substantial evidence for the ALJ’s fifty percent finding and the ALJ’s failure to
3 credit that testimony appears to have been based on a misreading of the
4 evidence.2 See Genier, 606 F.3d at 50 (remanding to the ALJ “[b]ecause the ALJ’s
5 adverse credibility finding, which was crucial to his rejection of [the] claim, was
6 based on a misreading of the evidence”). On remand, therefore, the ALJ’s
7 assessment of Mariani’s credibility should be based on accurate depictions of the
8 representations made by Mariani.
No. 12 Civ. 1282 (S.D.N.Y. March 22, 2013); (2) an electromygram [“EMG”] that showed that
Mariani suffered from very mild right median mononeuropathy at the wrist; (3) Dr. Rudnick’s
findings in 2008 that Mariani suffered from a “slight decrease sensation” in the fourth and fifth
digit of his right hand as well as “decreased range of motion right wrist secondary to pain” and
“decreased grip right hand,” id. at 350, 377‐78; (4) Dr. Arcuri’s determination that Mariani’s
sensation and reflexes for his upper extremities were intact, and his motor strength and find
motor skills were normal.
2 Contrary to the ALJ’s findings that Mariani “had no problems going shopping in stores,”
Mariani indicated that he did not shop independently and that he could only hold things with
his left hand. Social Security Administration Administrative Record at 16, 229, Mariani v.
Astrue, No. 12 Civ. 1282 (S.D.N.Y. March 22, 2013). While the ALJ found that Mariani had
conceded that “he was still able . . . to prepare small meals, to perform light cleaning and to do
laundry,” Mariani indicated that he would “attempt to do daily household chores” and that he
needed help to do light cleaning and the laundry, and was unable to carry laundry baskets. Id.
at 226‐28. According to the appellant, preparing meals took three times as long as it used to
because he would drop things and had difficulty opening bottles or jars.
8
13-1941
Mariani v. Colvin
1 Because there is not substantial evidence for the ALJ’s finding that Mariani
2 had a RFC to perform fine manipulation/fingering fifty percent of the time with
3 his dominant right upper extremity during a typical workday, we cannot uphold
4 the ALJ’s decision to reject Mariani’s claim for disability benefits. Further
5 findings would “plainly help to assure the proper disposition” of Mariani’s
6 claim; therefore, remand for further factfinding as to the extent of Mariani’s hand
7 impairment is the appropriate remedy. 3 Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 83 (2d Cir.
8 1999).
9 Conclusion
10 For the reasons stated above, we vacate and remand to the district court
11 with instructions to remand the matter to the Commissioner so that it can further
12 develop the evidence as to the extent of Mariani’s right hand impairment and
13 whether there are jobs in the economy Mariani can perform with that degree of
14 impairment. In light of the need to remand for further factfinding, we express no
3 Mariani contends that “reversal, with remand solely for the calculation of benefits is the
appropriate remedy in this case.” Appellant’s Br. 58. This is not a case, however, where
“remand for further evidentiary proceedings would serve no purpose.” Parker v. Harris, 626
F.2d 225, 235 (2d Cir. 1980). Nor is delay alone a sufficient basis on which to remand solely for
benefits. Bush v. Shalala, 94 F.3d 40, 46 (2d Cir. 1996).
9
13-1941
Mariani v. Colvin
1 opinion at this time as to whether the ALJ’s reliance on vocational expert
2 testimony was in error.
3 FOR THE COURT:
4 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
5
6
10
