Govan v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Figueredo
- 1:22-cv-08997
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
Govan v. Commissioner of Social Security: Judge Figueredo granted Govan’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded for further proceedings.
Sarah R. Govan and the Commissioner of Social Security. The denial of benefits was sent back for further proceedings because the Administrative Law Judge did not properly evaluate Govan’s treating physician’s opinion; the court did not decide that Govan was entitled to benefits.
What happened
In Govan v. Commissioner of Social Security, Sarah R. Govan challenged the denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits. The Administrative Law Judge found that she was not disabled and could perform other jobs, but gave little weight to her treating physician’s opinion.
The court found that the Administrative Law Judge did not properly evaluate the treating physician’s opinion. The judge failed to consider required factors, such as the treatment relationship and supporting medical evidence, and did not give sufficient reasons for rejecting the opinion.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Govan’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The court determined that the case should be sent back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Govan v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:22-cv-08997
- Figueredo
- Feb. 6, 2024
Background
Sarah R. Govan applied for Disability Insurance Benefits, alleging that she became disabled on August 19, 2014, because of conditions including hand and neck pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, diabetes, asthma, vision problems, and fibromyalgia. The Social Security Administration initially denied the application. After an earlier related proceeding, the case was sent back for further administrative proceedings.
Administrative Law Judge John Carlton held another hearing and again found that Govan was not disabled. The Administrative Law Judge found that Govan had several severe impairments, including spinal degenerative disc disease, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, fibromyalgia, diabetes, superficial venous insufficiency, asthma, and obesity. He found that she could perform a restricted range of sedentary work and that jobs existed in significant numbers that she could perform.
Govan moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to send the case back to the Social Security Administration. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Issue
The court focused on whether the Administrative Law Judge properly evaluated the medical opinion of Govan’s treating physician, Dr. Karen Morice. Because Govan’s application was filed before March 27, 2017, the treating-physician rule applied. Under that rule, an Administrative Law Judge generally must give greater weight to a treating source’s opinion and must consider specified factors before declining to give the opinion controlling weight.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Dr. Morice qualified as a treating source. Dr. Morice treated Govan for diffuse pain and fibromyalgia, saw her at least five times between March and December 2014, performed examinations and testing, referred her for X-rays, and developed treatment plans.
The Administrative Law Judge gave Dr. Morice’s opinion little weight but did not discuss the required factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the evidence supporting the opinion; and the opinion’s consistency with the record. The court stated that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision did not make clear that these factors had been considered.
The court also found that the reasons given for discounting Dr. Morice’s opinion were inadequate. The Administrative Law Judge mischaracterized Dr. Morice’s opinion about Govan’s expected absences, attributed a statement to Dr. Morice that had actually been made by another provider, did not adequately address uncertainty about the treatments involved, and made a conclusory assertion that the opinion conflicted with imaging without identifying the relevant evidence. The Administrative Law Judge also treated Dr. Morice’s statement about fibromyalgia and returning to work as a reason to discount the opinion, even though Dr. Morice’s opinion about absences considered Govan’s other impairments as well.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Govan’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The court determined that the Administrative Law Judge improperly assigned less than controlling weight to Dr. Morice’s opinion and that a remand for further proceedings was warranted. The opinion did not decide that Govan was entitled to benefits.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.