Opinion
18-cv-3280 (LDH)
2019-09-30
Richard TORRES, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Richard Blake Seelig, Sellig Law Offices, LLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff. Dara A. Olds, United States Attorney's Office Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, Edwin R. Cortes, DLA Piper LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.
Richard Blake Seelig, Sellig Law Offices, LLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Dara A. Olds, United States Attorney's Office Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, Edwin R. Cortes, DLA Piper LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LaSHANN DeARCY HALL, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Richard Torres appeals the decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (the "Act"). Defendant has moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings, requesting that this Court affirm the Commissioner's determination and dismiss the action. Plaintiff has cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that: (1) the ALJ erred in determining that Plaintiff's conditions do not meet or medically equal a listing under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.150(d), 404.1525, and 404.1526 ; (2) the ALJ erred in determining that Plaintiff could perform sedentary work; and (3) the ALJ failed to properly assess Plaintiff's credibility. The Court heard oral argument on July 10, 2019, regarding the parties' motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Court found as follows:
First , the ALJ did not run afoul of the treating-physician rule. After undertaking a searching review of the record, the Court was assured that the weight assigned by the treating physician was supported by good cause.
Second , the ALJ's finding that the Plaintiff's spinal stenosis did not meet or equal Listing 1.04 was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. While it is Plaintiff's burden at step three to demonstrate that he suffers a medical impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations, this does not relieve the ALJ of his duty to develop the administrative record where gaps or inconsistencies exist. Here, the medical records do not indicate whether the straight-leg-raising tests were in both the sitting and supine position and there is no evidence that the ALJ made any effort to resolve the ambiguity. Notably, evidence of both positions is required in order to support a finding of whether Plaintiff's impairment meets or equals Listing 1.04. See Sullivan v. Zebley , 493 U.S. 521, 530, 110 S.Ct. 885, 107 L.Ed.2d 967 (1990) ("For a claimant to show that his impairment matches a listing, it must meet all of the specified medical criteria. An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify."). On this basis, the Court remands to provide the ALJ with the opportunity to develop the record in light of these gaps. See Lamay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. , 562 F.3d 503, 508-09 (2d Cir. 2009) ("[I]t is the rule in our circuit that the ... ALJ ... must ... affirmatively develop the record in light of the essentially non-adversarial nature of a benefits proceeding.") (quoting Tejada v. Apfel , 167 F.3d 770, 774 (2d Cir. 1999) ); Hartnett v. Apfel , 21 F. Supp. 2d 217, 221 (E.D.N.Y. 1998) (observing that when an ALJ notes inconsistencies in a treating physician's reports, the ALJ has an affirmative duty to further develop the record) (citing Clark v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. , 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998) ); Schaal v. Apfel , 134 F.3d 496, 505 (2d Cir. 1998) ; Perez v. Chater , 77 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 1996) ).
The Court considered Plaintiff's final argument and found it without merit.
For these reasons, Plaintiff's motion [19] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Defendant's cross-motion [21] is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The Court remands to provide the ALJ with the opportunity to inquire as to whether Plaintiff's positive straight leg raising test included both sitting and supine testing.
SO ORDERED.