From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Oct 18, 2016
No. 15-4041-cv (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2016)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

finding that 20 C.F.R. §416.917 and 20 C.F.R.§404.1517 did "not amount to a requirement that every consulting physician be provided with all of a claimant's medical records and history (much less a requirement that the physician report that she viewed every, or any, document in the record)."

Summary of this case from Gray v. Berryhill
See 7 Summaries

Opinion

No. 15-4041-cv

10-18-2016

JOHN L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: John L. Johnson, pro se, Staten Island, New York. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Candace Scott Appleton, Assistant United States Attorney (Varuni Nelson and Arthur Swerdloff, Of Counsel, on the brief), for Robert L. Capers, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 18th day of October, two thousand sixteen. PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN, GERARD E. LYNCH, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: John L. Johnson, pro se, Staten Island, New York. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Candace Scott Appleton, Assistant United States Attorney (Varuni Nelson and Arthur Swerdloff, Of Counsel, on the brief), for Robert L. Capers, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York.

Appeal from a November 5, 2015, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Matsumoto, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant John L. Johnson, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's judgment on the pleadings, which dismissed his action seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's ("the Commissioner") denial of his benefits application. The district court concluded that the Commissioner's decision applied the correct legal standards and was supported by substantial evidence. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a district court's judgment on the pleadings. See Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402, 408 (2d Cir. 2010). When the judgment upholds a benefits determination by the Commissioner, we conduct a de novo review of the administrative record "to determine whether there is substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner's decision and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The substantial evidence standard is "a very deferential standard of review—even more so than the 'clearly erroneous' standard," and means that "once an ALJ finds facts, we can reject those facts only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise." Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted).

Upon review, we affirm for substantially the same reasons stated in the district court's well-reasoned and thorough memorandum and order. We agree with the district court that the administrative law judge complied with the applicable legal standards and reached a decision that was supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ did not err in deciding the weight to give various medical opinions in the record, as ALJs are not required to give controlling weight to opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Here, as the ALJ explained, Dr. Whittaker's opinion was not supported by the medical evidence and was at times internally inconsistent, R. 316, and Dr. Goldstein relied primarily on Johnson's self-reported symptoms, R. 317.

We have considered Johnson's remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

Summaries of

Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Oct 18, 2016
No. 15-4041-cv (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2016)

finding that 20 C.F.R. §416.917 and 20 C.F.R.§404.1517 did "not amount to a requirement that every consulting physician be provided with all of a claimant's medical records and history (much less a requirement that the physician report that she viewed every, or any, document in the record)."

Summary of this case from Gray v. Berryhill

concluding that ALJ properly gave limited weight to physician opinion based primarily on the claimant's self-reported symptoms

Summary of this case from Kelly v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

upholding ALJ's decision not to give controlling weight to medical opinion that primarily relied on claimant's self-reported symptoms

Summary of this case from Michael H. v. Saul

upholding ALJ's decision not to give controlling weight to medical opinion that primarily relied on claimant's self-reported symptoms

Summary of this case from Kelly v. Berryhill

affirming ALJ's decision to afford treating physician's opinion less weight where it was internally inconsistent, relied primarily on the plaintiff's self-reported symptoms, and was not supported by the medical evidence

Summary of this case from Harrison v. Berryhill

affirming a denial of benefits where "the ALJ mistakenly referred to Dr. Hahn as Dr. Slowe" and "the ALJ did in fact repeatedly make this mistake," but the "probable typo had no substantive impact on the ALJ's analysis"

Summary of this case from Martinez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

noting ALJ properly considered that physician's opinion "relied primarily on [claimant's] self-reported symptoms" in assigning weight

Summary of this case from Suzanne D. v. Berryhill
Case details for

Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 18, 2016

Citations

No. 15-4041-cv (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2016)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Saul

[Tr. 20, 23, 403]. Johnson v. Comm'r ofSoc. Sec., 669 F. App'x 580, 581 (2d Cir. 2016)(summary order)("ALJs…

Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Obviously, Dr. Liu did not have access to the December 23, 2013 cervical spine MRI because it was performed…

19 Citing Cases