Lockwood v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

Decision Date23 January 2019
Docket NumberAugust Term 2018,No. 17-2591-cv,17-2591-cv
Citation914 F.3d 87
Parties Stephen LOCKWOOD, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Patrick G. Radel, Getnick Livingston Atkinson & Priore, LLP, Utica, NY, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Andreea L. Lechleitner, Special Assistant United States Attorney, (Stephen P. Conte, Regional Chief Counsel — Region II, on the brief ), Office of the General Counsel, United States Social Security Administration, New York, NY, for Grant C. Jaquith, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY, for DefendantAppellee.

Before: Cabranes and Pooler, Circuit Judges, and Oetken, District Judge.*

J. Paul Oetken, District Judge:

PlaintiffAppellant Stephen Lockwood appeals from a June 21, 2017 judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Christian F. Hummel, Magistrate Judge ), upholding the decision of DefendantAppellee Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner") to deny Lockwood’s application for disability insurance benefits. On appeal, Lockwood argues among other things that the District Court should have set aside the benefits denial as unsupported by substantial evidence because the denial relied on expert testimony that contained an unexamined apparent conflict with an authoritative Department of Labor publication, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles . We agree with Lockwood on this point and therefore REVERSE the District Court’s judgment and REMAND for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background

On November 11, 2011, Lockwood was injured in an automobile accident while working as a landscaper. In the following months, Lockwood experienced abnormal sensation in his hands and severe pain in his neck and was, according to Drs. Srinivasan Mani and Mark Smith, disabled from performing his regular job as a consequence. In terms of diagnosis, the doctors believed that the unusual feeling in Lockwood’s hands might be a result of carpal tunnel syndrome

and that the neck pain might be attributable to herniated disks in Lockwood’s cervical spine.

To address the neck pain, Dr. Smith advised Lockwood to undergo disk-repair surgery. Dr. Richard Tallarico, an orthopedic surgeon, concurred in this advice, and he performed the recommended surgery on November 7, 2012.

Following the surgery, Lockwood consulted several times with Nurse Practitioner Catherine Tomaiuoli. In an early consultation, Nurse Tomaiuoli observed that Lockwood’s neck pain persisted and that he had a reduced range of motion in his left shoulder, as well as difficulty with certain arm movements. She recommended that Lockwood receive a magnetic resonance imaging

("MRI") scan and that he restrict the amount of weight he lifted.

In June 2013, Lockwood received the recommended MRI. Based on the results, Nurse Tomaiuoli referred Lockwood to Dr. John Cannizzaro, an orthopedic surgeon, who examined Lockwood and on July 16, 2013, concluded that his shoulder was 30% disabled. During a subsequent consultation, Dr. Tallarico, the surgeon who had operated on Lockwood’s neck, deemed Lockwood to be 75% impaired as a result of his continuing neck and shoulder pain and his limited range of motion. Dr. Tallarico considered Lockwood’s disability to be permanent.

Meanwhile, Lockwood was following up on his doctors’ suggestion that he suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome

. On May 22, 2013, he received carpal tunnel release surgery on his right wrist from Dr. Kevin Setter. During a follow-up examination with Nurse Practitioner Carmelita Woods, however, Lockwood reported that he was continuing to experience tenderness and abnormal sensation in his hands. After examining Lockwood, Nurse Woods concluded that Lockwood had 50% and 25% impairments in his right and left hands, respectively, and that carpal tunnel release surgery on the left hand would be appropriate. Dr. Setter performed that surgery on July 1, 2013.

B. Administrative Proceedings

On July 26, 2013, Lockwood submitted an application to the Commissioner pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. , seeking disability insurance benefits as of the date of his automobile accident. At the Commissioner’s request, Lockwood received an examination from orthopedist Dr. Tanya Perkins–Mwantuali. The doctor found that Lockwood had "moderate limitation with lifting, pushing, pulling, reaching forward and reaching above the level of the shoulder, and carrying with the use of the left arm." Admin. Record ("R.") 330.1 She also determined that Lockwood had mild to moderate limitations with respect to activities that require a full range of neck motion. Following this assessment, the Commissioner denied Lockwood’s benefits application.

Lockwood then requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). At the resultant June 2, 2014 hearing, the ALJ heard testimony from Lockwood and from Dian Heller, a vocational expert. Heller offered her opinion that a person of Lockwood’s age, education, and experience could perform the physical tasks associated with three specific jobs that collectively number around 154,000 nationally, as long as he retained the ability to perform light work that did not require any overhead reaching.

On October 27, 2014, the ALJ issued a written opinion denying benefits. Although the ALJ found that Lockwood suffered from severe impairments, she concluded that he was nonetheless capable of performing certain physical activities that, among other things, did not involve any "overhead reaching." R. 19–20. Relying on Heller’s testimony regarding the three jobs that people with comparable limitations are capable of performing, and finding that these jobs exist in significant number in the national economy, the ALJ concluded that Lockwood was not entitled to benefits.

Lockwood sought review from the Social Security Appeals Council. The Appeals Council granted review and, in a May 3, 2016 decision, adopted the ALJ’s opinion as its own in all relevant respects. With that decision, the Commissioner’s denial of Lockwood’s benefits application became final.

C. Federal Court Proceedings

Dissatisfied by the result of the agency proceedings, Lockwood turned to federal court. On June 7, 2016, Lockwood filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, seeking review of the benefits denial. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (authorizing judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decisions). Following submission of the administrative record, both Lockwood and the Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings.

In support of his motion, Lockwood advanced two arguments that are relevant here. First, he argued that the Commissioner had relied on Heller’s testimony without first probing into an apparent conflict between that testimony and an authoritative Department of Labor publication, the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (the "Dictionary ").2 Specifically, he pointed out that Heller had identified three jobs capable of being performed by a person who cannot reach overhead, but that the Dictionary ’s descriptions of these jobs state without qualification that each requires "reaching." Second, he argued that the Commissioner, in assessing his physical capabilities, failed to address Nurse Woods’s observation that he had respective impairments of 50% and 25% in his right and left hands.

The District Court rejected both of Lockwood’s arguments. As for the first argument, the District Court held that even if there had been a conflict between Heller’s testimony and the Dictionary , the conflict was "reconciled because [Heller’s] testimony indicate[d] that she based her opinion on her own experience observing the performance of the identified jobs." Lockwood v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , No. 6:16-CV-0648, 2017 WL 2656194, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. June 20, 2017). Therefore, it was "possible to reasonably infer" that Heller’s experience was her basis for testifying "that [Lockwood] would be able to perform [the jobs in question] despite a limitation for avoidance of overhead reaching," notwithstanding any contrary indications in the Dictionary . Id.

As for Lockwood’s second argument, the District Court held that the omission of Nurse Woods’s opinion had been harmless. See id. at *6–8. In the District Court’s view, Nurse Woods’s opinion was "ambiguous as to what precisely [Lockwood] is limited to doing with his hands" and so did not undermine the Commissioner’s conclusion that Lockwood could perform the jobs Heller had identified. Id. at *7.

Having so reasoned, the District Court granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Lockwood’s. This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal, Lockwood renews his arguments that the benefits denial must be set aside because the Commissioner (1) failed to examine an apparent conflict between Heller’s testimony and the Dictionary and (2) failed to address Nurse Woods’s opinion regarding Lockwood’s hand impairments. We agree with Lockwood on the first point and therefore reverse the District Court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings. In light of that holding, we need not address Lockwood’s second argument.

A. Standard of Review

We may reverse the District Court’s decision to uphold the Commissioner’s denial of benefits only if our "plenary review of the administrative record" reveals that "the [Commissioner’s] factual findings are not supported by ‘substantial evidence’ " or that "the [benefits] decision is based on legal error." Shaw v. Chater , 221 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) ).

B. Analysis

Our analysis begins and ends with Lockwood’s argument that the Commissioner’s finding that he is capable of performing the three jobs identified by Heller was not based on substantial evidence. In Lockwood’s view, the evidence upon which the Commissioner relied in determining what physical demands...

To continue reading

Request your trial
132 cases
  • Collins v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • April 6, 2020
    ...bilateral reaching creates an apparent conflict that the ALJ must resolve. See Pearson, 810 F.3d at 211; see also Lockwood v. Comm'r, 914 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir. 2019) ("Testimony that a claimant with overhead reaching limitations is capable of performing a job that the [DOT] describes as requ......
  • Alex C. v. Kijakazi
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • February 16, 2023
    ...Circuit has expressly rejected this basis for accepting the testimony of a vocational expert. Lockwood v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 914 F.3d 87, 93, n.4 (2d Cir. 2019) (“[W]e decline to follow the District Court in inferring that [a VE's] personal observations of the jobs about which she ......
  • Hernandez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 16, 2022
    ...of whether any particular job can accommodate a given claimant's physical limitations.” Lockwood v. Comm 'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 914 F.3d 87, 91 (2d Cir. 2019). This Ruling states that “[occupational evidence provided by a [VE],. .generally should be consistent with” the DOT. SSR 00-4p, 200......
  • Maisonave v. Berryhill, 18 Civ. 2960 (HBP)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 3, 2019
    ...evidencePage 27 or if it is based upon an erroneous legal standard. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Lockwood v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 914 F.3d 87, 91 (2d Cir. 2019); Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam); Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2012); Burgess v. A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT