Vicari v. Berryhill

Background

Vincent Vicari challenged the Social Security Administration’s denial of his disability benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the existing court filings rather than a trial. Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Commissioner’s motion be granted and Vicari’s motion be denied.

The recommendation concluded that the Administrative Law Judge did not err by giving little evidentiary weight to certain retrospective opinions about Vicari’s disability and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Vicari’s Objections

Vicari objected to the evidence considered in determining the onset date of his disability. He argued that the recommendation improperly relied on his failure to receive treatment before November 1997. The court found that the recommendation also considered physicians’ opinions, Vicari’s statements about why he was not working, and his Global Assessment of Functioning score. The court further stated that the absence of evidence from the claimed disability period could itself be considered substantial evidence.

Vicari also argued that the recommendation improperly relied on Dr. Fine’s testimony in rejecting a March 25, 1997, disability-onset date. The court concluded that the recommendation properly considered the entire record, including contradictory evidence and conflicting inferences, when evaluating the physicians’ opinions. It also accepted the reasoning that a non-examining source’s opinion may override an examining or treating source’s opinion when supported by the record.

Finally, Vicari argued that Dr. Rudy’s Global Assessment of Functioning score was unreliable because a high score in one area could raise the overall score even when a person is otherwise disabled. The court rejected this objection, stating that the Commissioner’s conclusion must be upheld when the evidence reasonably supports more than one interpretation.

Ruling

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti found no error, clear or otherwise, in the magistrate judge’s recommendation or the underlying decision. The court overruled Vicari’s objections and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the court’s opinion. The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was GRANTED. Vicari’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was DENIED. The case was DISMISSED, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment and close the case.