Cruz Piris v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Paul Davison
- 7:19-cv-02366
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 20
Cruz-Piris v. Saul: Judge Davison upheld the denial of disability benefits, granting the Commissioner’s motion and denying Cruz-Piris’s motion.
Leslie Kathiria Cruz-Piris, whose denial of Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income remained in place; the Commissioner of Social Security, whose decision the court upheld.
What happened
Leslie Kathiria Cruz-Piris asked the court to review the Social Security Commissioner’s decision denying her disability insurance and supplemental income benefits. She argued that the administrative law judge improperly discounted her treating physician’s opinion, failed to consider her obesity, and ignored testimony that excessive absences would prevent employment.
The court found that the administrative law judge gave adequate reasons for discounting parts of Dr. Fenar Themistocle’s restrictive opinion because it conflicted with other medical evidence, including generally normal strength, gait, sensation, and range of motion. The court also found no error in the failure to discuss obesity because no medical source identified work-related limitations caused by Cruz-Piris’s weight, and the attendance testimony did not establish that she would actually miss work that often.
Judge Paul E. Davison granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Cruz-Piris’s motion. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motions and close the case.
The detailed version
- Cruz Piris v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-02366
- Paul Davison
- May 21, 2020
Background
Leslie Kathiria Cruz-Piris sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. She alleged disability based on scoliosis, disc herniation, neck pain, arthritis of the spine, and a bulging disc. The administrative law judge found that she had several severe spinal, pain, and knee impairments, but determined that she retained the capacity to perform light work with restrictions. Because she could not perform her past work, the administrative law judge relied on vocational-expert testimony and found that she could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Cruz-Piris argued that the administrative law judge erred by failing to give controlling weight to treating physician Dr. Fenar Themistocle’s opinion, failing to consider obesity, and failing to find her disabled based on vocational-expert testimony concerning absences from work. The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standards and that substantial evidence supported the decision.
Treating-Physician Opinion
Dr. Themistocle opined that Cruz-Piris could sit for less than one hour, stand or walk for one hour, and would need to recline for two hours during an eight-hour workday. He also opined that she could not lift more than 10 pounds and would be absent from work more than three days per month. The administrative law judge gave little weight to these restrictions, some weight to portions concerning postural and manipulative limits, and little weight to opinions about psychological conditions and medication side effects.
The court held that the administrative law judge provided good reasons for declining to give controlling weight to the disputed portions of Dr. Themistocle’s opinion. The court emphasized that the opinion was inconsistent with other substantial evidence, including examinations showing normal or intact strength, sensation, gait, reflexes, and range of motion at various times. The consultative examination also showed full strength, intact hand and finger dexterity, normal grip strength, largely full spinal and joint movement, and a negative straight-leg-raising test. Although the record contained abnormal findings such as tenderness, spasms, pain, and some restricted movement, the court concluded that the record as a whole did not support the extreme restrictions identified by Dr. Themistocle.
Obesity
The court acknowledged that the administrative law judge’s decision did not mention Cruz-Piris’s obesity and that medical records reflected body-mass-index levels above the obesity threshold. However, the court found no medical evidence attributing symptoms, functional limits, or worsening of other impairments to her weight. It therefore held that the failure to discuss obesity was not error.
Vocational-Expert Testimony
The vocational expert testified that no jobs would be available for a person who was consistently absent one and one-half or more days per month. The court rejected Cruz-Piris’s argument that this testimony required a finding of disability because the administrative law judge properly declined to adopt Dr. Themistocle’s opinion that she would miss more than three days per month. The administrative law judge’s residual-functional-capacity finding did not include an attendance restriction, and Cruz-Piris identified no supporting evidence showing that she would miss at least one and one-half days per month.
Disposition
The court held that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s residual-functional-capacity assessment and the conclusion that Cruz-Piris could adjust to other work existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Commissioner’s motion was GRANTED, Cruz-Piris’s motion was DENIED, the pending motions were terminated, and the case was closed.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.