Wasserman v. Saul

Background

Peter Wasserman applied for disability insurance benefits on November 17, 2016. The Social Security Administration denied his claim, and an administrative law judge later found that he was not disabled. The administrative law judge determined that Wasserman retained the residual functional capacity—the ability to perform work despite his medical limitations—to perform light work with certain restrictions.

Wasserman’s treating physician, Dr. Robert Goldstein, stated that Wasserman was totally disabled beginning in September 2011 and could not perform even sedentary work. The administrative law judge did not give that opinion controlling weight. The judge found it poorly supported and inconsistent with Dr. Goldstein’s treatment notes, other medical opinions, medical records, and Wasserman’s testimony. Opinions from Dr. J. Koenig and Dr. Jay Dinovitser described greater functional abilities.

A magistrate judge recommended denying Wasserman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granting the Commissioner’s cross-motion. Wasserman filed objections to that recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

The district court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently. It explained that judicial review of the Commissioner’s disability decision asks whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate.

The court held that the administrative law judge properly applied the treating-physician rule applicable to Wasserman’s claim. Under that rule, a treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by accepted medical methods and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. If the opinion does not receive controlling weight, the administrative law judge must determine what weight to give it by considering factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization.

The court identified several reasons supporting the decision to discount Dr. Goldstein’s opinion. Dr. Goldstein attributed serious hip limitations to Wasserman beginning in 2011, but the treatment notes did not mention hip pain until June 2018. The opinion also conflicted with Wasserman’s testimony that he had taken long flights, biked for exercise, mowed his lawn for about an hour and a half, performed light household chores, and engaged in other activities. In addition, Dr. Goldstein’s restrictions were more severe than those described by Dr. Koenig and Dr. Dinovitser. The court also found that the administrative law judge considered Dr. Goldstein’s status as an orthopedist.

Because the administrative law judge reasonably evaluated Dr. Goldstein’s opinion, the court concluded that the finding that Wasserman was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti overruled Wasserman’s objections and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Wasserman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Clerk was instructed to enter judgment and close the case.