Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 6:2018cv06354 - Document 16 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HUGH B. SCOTTORDER granting 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 13 Motion for Judgment on the PleadingsPlaintiff's Motion (Docket No. 12) for Judg ment is granted; defendant's Motion (Docket No. 13) is denied. The matter is remanded to defendant Commissioner for further proceedings.The Court Clerk to enter judgment consistent with this Opinion.So Ordered. Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 10/25/2019. (DRH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
416.927(f)(1) for consideration of medical opinion for preMarch 2017 claims, “Consideration. Opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and from nonmedical sources may reflect the source's judgment about some of the same issues addressed in medical opinions from acceptable medical sources. Although we will consider these opinions using the same factors as listed in paragraph (c)(1) through (c)(6) in this section, not every factor for weighing opinion evidence will apply in every case because the evaluation of an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source depends on the particular facts in each case. Depending on the particular facts in a case, and after applying the factors for weighing opinion 10 evidence, an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source may outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source, including the medical opinion of a treating source. For example, it may be appropriate to give more weight to the opinion of a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source if he or she has seen the individual more often than the treating source, has provided better supporting evidence and a better explanation for the opinion, and the opinion is more consistent with the evidence as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(f). These factors include the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether the opinions are supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, consistency with the record as a whole, specialization, and other factors, id., § 416.927(c)(1)-(6). Application In the instant case, the issue is whether the ALJ had substantial evidence to support the decision rendered denying disability coverage. Plaintiff argues that the ALJ ignored three medical opinions from treating sources and rejected or did not comment on six other opinions (Docket No. 12, Pl. Memo. at 1, 18, 19-22). She contends that the residual functional capacity assessment was not based upon any medical opinion (id. at 1, 18, 22-25). The parties dispute the degree of consideration the ALJ needed to provide for not acceptable medical sources. Defendant argues that the ALJ correctly discounted nurse Jansen and nurse practitioner Ingram as not providing “medical opinions” (Docket No. 13, Def. Memo. at 4-5), 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(a)(1), 416.913(d)(1), 416.902. I. Treating Source Opinions While defendant is correct that under the applicable treating source regulations, nurse, social workers, and nurse practitioners are not acceptable medical sources, they did constitute “not acceptable medical sources” whose opinions need to be weighed under the same factors as 11 for medical opinions under 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(1)-(6). The ALJ here rejected Jansen’s and Ingram’s opinions out of hand (as well as social workers’ opinions [R. 18-19]) merely because they were not so-called acceptable medical sources. Despite not being from acceptable medical sources, the ALJ needed to evaluate these treating sources under § 416.927(f). Ingram had longevity in treating plaintiff, but the ALJ did not factor that in in considering Ingram’s opinions. Instead, the ALJ relied upon the finding (without citation) that plaintiff had normal gait, strength, tone to discount Ingram’s contrary opinions [R. 20]. There were insufficient grounds for rejecting these opinions. Plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 12) for judgment on the pleading is granted on this ground. II. Physical Assessment in Residual Functional Capacity The ALJ, in disregarding Ingram’s opinions, contends that the record supports his contention that plaintiff was not as limited as she argues. The ALJ, however, does not show in the record where plaintiff could lift, stand or sit that is required for sedentary work, resting on the conclusion that plaintiff had normal gait, strength, and tone (e.g., [R. 20]). The residual functional capacity assessment only factored in mild carpel tunnel syndrome [R. 20] and, in a limited manner, her obesity [R. 20]. The ALJ also reasoned that nurse practitioner’s opinions (and plaintiff’s own testimony) could be discounted because of plaintiff’s care of her nine-year-old son [R. 19, 20] without any record of the extent of plaintiff’s parental care. The citations the ALJ relies upon for plaintiff’s parental care merely state that plaintiff resided with two children [R. 277] without stating who provided childcare. The ALJ thus discounted plaintiff’s treating sources as to her anxiety and panic attacks based upon her ability to care for her young son; this fact was insufficiently developed in this record. The ALJ thus erred in relying upon it without an adequate evidentiary 12 basis. This matter should be remanded to identify who provides childcare and what extent plaintiff requires help in providing that care. Plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 12) for judgment is granted. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 12) judgment on the pleadings is granted, and defendant’s motion (Docket No. 13) for judgment on the pleadings is denied. Thus, the decision of the defendant Commissioner is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the above decision to find additional facts, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), see Curry v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 117, 124 (2d Cir. 2000). The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. So Ordered. s/Hugh B. Scott Hon. Hugh B. Scott United States Magistrate Judge Buffalo, New York October 25, 2019 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
