Vicens v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:19-cv-10743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 30
In Vicens v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Aaron denied Vicens’s motion and granted the Commissioner’s motion, leaving the disability denial in place.
Damari Vicens’s claim for disability insurance benefits was rejected, and the Commissioner’s denial of benefits remained in place.
What happened
Damari Vicens challenged the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. She argued that her spinal problems met a listed disability and that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated her treating physician’s opinion.
The court found substantial evidence supporting the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Vicens did not meet Listing 1.04(A), which concerns serious spinal disorders. The court also found that the judge properly gave little weight to Dr. Schwartz’s opinion because it conflicted with other medical evidence and later records.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied Vicens’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The court requested that the Clerk close the case.
The detailed version
- Vicens v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-10743
- Stewart Aaron
- Feb. 5, 2021
Background
Damari Vicens sought judicial review under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act after the Commissioner denied her application for disability insurance benefits. Vicens alleged disability beginning May 9, 2013. The administrative law judge found that she had severe spinal impairments and obesity, but concluded that she was not disabled. The judge determined that Vicens could not perform her past work but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. The Appeals Council denied review, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.
Vicens filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to remand the case to the Social Security Administration. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. Vicens argued that the administrative law judge improperly evaluated Listing 1.04(A) and violated the treating-physician rule by giving little weight to Dr. Douglas Schwartz’s opinion.
Listing 1.04(A)
Listing 1.04(A) concerns certain disorders of the spine involving nerve-root or spinal-cord compression, along with specified evidence such as pain in a nerve distribution, limited spinal motion, muscle weakness, sensory or reflex loss, and, when the lower back is involved, positive straight-leg-raising tests. A claimant must satisfy all of the listed criteria.
The court held that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s conclusion that Vicens did not meet or medically equal Listing 1.04(A). Although some evidence showed that Vicens met some listing criteria, other examinations documented normal or intact strength, sensation, and reflexes, as well as negative straight-leg-raising tests. The court also noted that, although the administrative law judge’s discussion of step three was brief, other parts of the decision showed that the judge considered the relevant evidence.
Dr. Schwartz’s Opinion
The court also rejected Vicens’s challenge to the evaluation of Dr. Schwartz’s opinion. Dr. Schwartz had repeatedly stated that Vicens was totally disabled and had assessed limitations inconsistent with even sedentary work. The administrative law judge gave that opinion little weight.
The court explained that a treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. The court found that the administrative law judge gave adequate reasons for discounting Dr. Schwartz’s opinion, including differences between Dr. Schwartz’s examinations and other medical examinations, findings of normal strength and reflexes, opinions from Drs. Gorski and Zaretsky supporting greater ability to work, improvement with treatment, and unchanged basic medication management. Considering the record as a whole, the court found that the treating-physician rule had not been violated.
Disposition
The court denied Vicens’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court requested that the Clerk of Court close the case.
Judge
Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge, signed the opinion and order.
Read the full 30-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.