New York Social Security Disability Lawyer Blog

As experienced Social Security Disability attorneys who have represented thousands of clients in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut in claims for disability benefits, we understand that many people are not able to work as a result of a combination of physical and mental impairments. In Jusino v. Commissioner of Social Security, the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico vacates a Social Security judge's decision on a disability benefits claim, finding that the judge failed to properly take into account the full extent of the claimant's mental impairments on his ability to work.

Plaintiff Rafael Cabanillas died as a result of arterial hypertension and diabetes mellitus while his claim for Social Security Disability benefits was pending before the Social Security Administration (SSA). He had also been diagnosed with major depression and severe panic disorder with agoraphobia prior to his death.

The SSA initially denied Cabanillas' claim. Following an administrative hearing before an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the ALJ determined that Cabanillas was not disabled for benefits purposes during the period for which he was covered under the SSA's Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program, August 2003 to December 2008. Specifically, the ALJ found that, while Cabanillas had moderate limitations in his daily living activities and could not return to work as a shipping clerk or salesperson, he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform a full range of light work, including jobs as table worker and small product assembler.

Cabanillas' mother, Flor Jusino, was substituted as the Plaintiff in this case following Cabanillas's death.

On appeal, the District Court reversed the ALJ's decision, finding that it was not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the Court found that the ALJ failed to properly consider the non-exertional limitations imposed by Cabanillas' mental impairments.

Continue reading "Court Reverses Social Security Disability Decision for Failure to Properly Consider Mental Impairments - Jusino v. Commissioner of Social Security" »

We often see clients in Social Security Disability cases who are unable to work due not only because of one physical or mental impairment, but due to a combination of impairments which, together, can wreak havoc on a person's everyday life. In Bryant v. Astrue, the District Court for the District of New Jersey explained that, when considering a claim by a person who suffers from severe obesity, the government must not only determine the effect of the obesity alone, but also its effect on any other impairments.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) rejected Plaintiff Lorraine Bryant's disability benefits claim where she asserted that she was unable to work due to asthma, glaucoma, hypertension, obesity, depression and a history of substance abuse. Plaintiff then appeared before an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in an administrative hearing in New Jersey. Following the hearing, the ALJ determined that Bryant was not disabled for benefits purposes because, although she could not return to her previous job as a sales representative, she could nevertheless transition to other available jobs in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut area.

On appeal, the District Court remanded the case to the ALJ, finding that the judge failed to assess the impact of Plaintiff's obesity on her other impairments. Citing the Third Circuit's 2009 decision in Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security, the Court ruled that an ALJ considering a disability benefits claim by a person who suffers from obesity must perform an "individualized inquiry" that "focus[es] on the combined effect of obesity and other severe impairments." Specifically, "an ALJ must meaningfully consider the effect of a claimant's obesity, individually and in combination with her impairments," the Court held. That includes discussing the relevant evidence and explaining the weight afforded it in a manner that allows a reviewing court to perform its duty.

In this case, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff suffered from severe obesity and indicated that he considered its impact on her ability to work. The judge did not, however, explain what analysis was performed, nor set forth the reasons for concluding that Plaintiff could continue to work despite her obesity and other impairments. Thus, the Court remanded the case "for further analysis as to the impact of Plaintiff's obesity on her other impairments."

Until 1999 a person who suffered from obesity could have been found eligible for Social Security Disability benefits if he or she was unable to work for a year. At that point obesity was removed as a a disabling impairment in and of itself, but in a Ruling that is binding on the ALJ's, Social Security pointed out that the impact of obesity on all other impairments that a claimant has must be considered.

As the Court made clear in its ruling, obesity is a serious condition that can have a debilitating effect on those who suffer from it. It can result in a number of other impairments and exacerbate existing impairments. The ALJ cannot simply give this direction lip service. He must truly analyze the impact that obesity has on a claimant's other conditions.

Continue reading "Court Reverses New Jersey Social Security Disability Decision Involving Obesity Claim - Bryant v. Astrue" »

In Bunger v. Astrue, the Eastern District of New York recently took on a case appealing the Social Security Administration's (SSA's) denial of a disability benefits claim: in which both the claimant and the SSA agree that the agency's decision was flawed.

Plaintiff Richard Bunger filed a claim for Social Security Disability benefits in 2008, asserting that he was no longer able to work as a New York City firefighter due to lumbar degenerative disc disease. The SSA denied the claim and Bunger later appeared before an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at an administrative hearing . The ALJ found that although Bunger could not return to his previous job, he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work, including various jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy.

On appeal, both Bunger and the SSA acknowledged that the ALJ failed to properly weigh the medical evidence in determining Bunger's RFC. Specifically, the ALJ gave only "some weight" to the opinion of Bunger's treating physician, simply stating that the opinion was "conclusory and not supported by the treatment record or the evidence as a whole," without providing sufficient analysis or explanation. Furthermore, according to the court, the ALJ failed to consider Bunger's nonexertational limitiations, "despite overwhelming evidence" of them.

The parties disagreed, however, as to how the court should address the ALJ's failings. Bunger argued that the court should award him benefits and remand the case to the ALJ simply to determine the amount of those benefits, while the SSA asserted that the case should be remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Bunger is even eligible for benefits.

Citing the Second Circuit's 1980 decision in Pratts v. Harris, the court noted that "[r]emand solely for calculation of benefits is appropriate where 'the record provides persuasive proof of disability and a remand for further evidentiary proceedings would serve no purpose.'" Remand for further proceedings, however, is appropriate where there are gaps in the administrative record or the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard.

Continue reading "The Clock is Ticking: New York Court Reverses Disability Benefits Decision, Sets Time Limit for SSA to Hold Further Proceedings - Bunger v. Astrue" »

We know that the Social Security Disability claims process can be a long, complicated and even intimidating experience for a person who is injured, unable to work and seeking benefits. As the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Rife v. Commissioner shows, a claimant should not give up until the process is complete. We advise our clients that the initial and reconsideration denials are designed to discourage claimants from going further with their claims.

Plaintiff Donald Rife filed a claim for Social Security Disability benefits, asserting that he was unable to work due to a back injury that he sustained working on a construction job. After the Social Security Administration (SSA) denied the claim, Rife appealed and requested a hearing before an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

The ALJ determined that Rife could not return to construction work, but was not disabled for benefits purposes because, because he retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform other jobs available in the national economy.

The Appeals Council upheld the ALJ's decision and he then filed this lawsuit in federal district court. The court again affirmed the ALJ's decision, denying Rife's claim.

On further appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated the District Court's decision and remanded the case back to the ALJ for further proceedings. The Court found that the ALJ did not provide sufficient reasoning for rejecting the opinion of plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Hall.

As readers of this blog may know, it is well established that "the ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating source's opinion if that opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record." If an ALJ declines to give the opinion such weight, he must provide clear reasons for discounting or rejecting the opinion, based on evidence in the record.

Continue reading "In Social Security Disability Cases, Don't Give Up - Rife v. Commissioner of Social Security" »

Sometimes a decision in a Social Security Disability case makes you scratch your head. In Small v. Commissioner of Social Security, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida took on a case where a Social Security judge found that a disability benefits claimant was disabled before he later found that she was not disabled.

In 2003, Plaintiff Angela Small filed a claim for Social Security disability benefits, asserting that she was unable to work due to back pain, migraines, anxiety and depression. The Social Security Administration (SSA) initially denied the claim. In a hearing before an SSA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Plaintiff's lawyer informed the ALJ that she wanted to amend her claim to assert that her disability only lasted from April 1, 2003, to July 22, 2005. The judge awarded benefits for this "closed period" of disability.

Plaintiff later appealed, claiming that she remains disabled and should be awarded benefits beyond July 2005. The SSA Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ's award. Following another hearing before the ALJ, the judge issued another decision, finding that Plaintiff had not been disabled since April 2003 and denying her benefits claim despite the earlier favorable determination covering the same period.

On appeal, the Middle District reversed the ALJ's decision, ruling that it was not supported by substantial evidence. "Weighing the opinions and findings of treating, examining, and non-examining physicians is an integral part of...the ALJ's sequential evaluation process for determining disability," the court noted. Citing the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Winschel v. Commissioner of Social Security, the Court further explained that an ALJ considering a medical opinion must "state with particularity the weight given to it and the reasons therefore."

In this case, the ALJ stated that he gave "some weight" to the opinion of Dr. George Solomon, who determined that Plaintiff was permanently unable to work due to her impairments. The judge did not, however, indicate whether the opinion was consistent with other medical evidence in the record. In fact, according to the court, it was unclear whether the ALJ actually considered Dr. Solomon's opinion at all. "The Court cannot tell if the ALJ considered Dr. Solomon's opinion in his most recent decision, the weight given to Dr. Solomon's opinion or the reasons such weight was given."

Continue reading "Disabled or Not Disabled: In Social Security Cases, That is The Question - Small v. Commissioner of Social Security" »