Clark v. Commissioner of Social Sec., Docket No. 97-6164
| Decision Date | 05 May 1998 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 97-6164 |
| Citation | 143 F.3d 115 |
| Parties | Maxine CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Maxine Clark, New York City, pro se.
Susan D. Baird, Assistant United States Attorney, for Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Gideon A. Schor, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: WALKER and CALABRESI, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge. *
Maxine Clark appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Shira A. Scheindlin, Judge ) affirming the Social Security Administration's ("SSA") denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits and dismissing her complaint on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). We vacate and remand.
Clark claims that she is disabled as a result of having undergone surgery in February 1990 for a benign lesion on her right fibula, a bone in the lower leg. Although Clark testified that her suffering has been constant since the surgery, her medical records show that her complaints of pain have increased with the passage of time. Three months after the surgery, Clark told her doctor that she was not in pain and that she was able to walk, but that she had occasional swelling in her right ankle. And in February 1992, an examining physician found that Clark had recovered full motor activity and sensation in the leg, and that no follow-up treatment was necessary.
Clark next sought medical attention for her leg in June 1993, when she complained of pain to Dr. Lloyd Sookhu. Clark began seeing Dr. Sookhu on a regular basis. In July 1993, Clark applied for SSI benefits. In September 1993, Dr. Sookhu prepared a medical report indicating that Clark was experiencing pain, weakness, and decreased sensation in her right leg. He reported that there was no significant limit on her ability to flex or extend the leg, that there was no significant abnormality in her gait, and that she did not require an assistive device to walk. With respect to Clark's ability to hold a job, Dr. Sookhu indicated (a) that Clark could stand, sit or walk for a maximum of eight hours per day; (b) that she could occasionally lift and carry a maximum of twenty-five pounds; and (c) that she could push and pull hand and foot controls without limitation.
That same month, another physician, Dr. A. Kovary, also assessed Clark's residual functional capacity for work. He found (a) that Clark could lift and carry twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently; (b) that she could stand or walk about two hours in an eight-hour workday; (c) that she could sit about six hours in an eight-hour workday; and (d) that she could push and pull hand and foot controls without limitation.
Clark's treating physician, Dr. Sookhu, prepared a second assessment in July 1994. He stated that he had been seeing Clark approximately once every three months, and that she was still suffering from pain and numbness in the lower right leg. She had discontinued physical therapy, but had been taking 600 mg per day of Motrin. Dr. Sookhu's evaluation of Clark's functional capacity had changed. He indicated that she could only stand for one hour and sit for four hours out of an eight-hour workday, and that she needed to lie down during the day when tired. He reported that she could not bend her right knee without pain, but that she had no problems using her hands and could lift a maximum of twenty-one to fifty pounds and carry eleven to twenty pounds. According to Dr. Sookhu, Clark could walk for only one block without stopping, but she was able to travel alone by bus and subway. Dr. Sookhu did not provide any additional information in the space designated for "clinical findings, laboratory and test results."
Clark filed her application for SSI benefits in July 1993, shortly after she began seeing Dr. Sookhu on a regular basis. The application was denied, and Clark requested a hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). In January 1995, the ALJ found that Clark was not disabled. The ALJ stated that Clark's allegations of pain and physical limitations were inconsistent with the medical evidence. The ALJ also believed that Dr. Sookhu's second functional assessment was inconsistent with, and not supported by, the other medical evidence in the record--in particular, Dr. Sookhu's and Dr. Kovary's September 1993 reports. In addition, the ALJ noted that Dr. Sookhu's second report failed to mention any clinical or objective findings to support his conclusion that Clark' functional capacity had decreased, and that Dr. Sookhu failed to explain why Clark's leg problem would preclude her from sitting for six hours a day. The ALJ concluded that Clark's impairments prevented her from lifting and carrying more than ten pounds and from standing and walking for long periods of time, but that Clark would be able to do sedentary work.
Clark filed objections, arguing that the ALJ "should have acted affirmatively to seek out clarifying information" concerning the discrepancies between Dr. Sookhu's inconsistent functional assessments. The Appeals Council denied Clark's request for review, and she filed her complaint in the district court. In March 1997, the Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), and in June 1997, the court granted this motion. The district court found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the evidence that Clark had presented to the district court was not new or material.
In reviewing the denial of SSI benefits, we must determine whether the SSA's decision was supported by substantial evidence and based on the proper legal standard, keeping in mind that it is up to the agency, and not this court, to weigh the conflicting evidence in the record. See, e.g., Beauvoir v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1432, 1433 (2d Cir.1997). We review de novo the district court's decision to grant judgment on the pleadings. See, e.g., Sheppard v. Beerman, 94 F.3d 823, 827 (2d Cir.1996).
The law gives special evidentiary weight to the opinion of the treating physician. Specifically, the regulations state that:
Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources.... If we find that a treating source's opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L.R.B. v. Local 46, Metallic Lathers Union and Reinforcing Iron Workers of New York and Vicinity of the Intern. Ass'n of Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers
...may or may not be probative, depending on whether the condition is "ephemeral" or "permanent or lasting") (cited in Clark v. Commissioner, 143 F.3d 115, 119 n.1 (2d Cir.1998)). The notion that prior or subsequent actions of an organization are relevant to prove the conduct of the organizati......
-
Gladden v. Commissioner of Social Sec.
...see, e.g., Foxman v. Barnhart, 157 Fed.Appx. at 346-47; Halloran, v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d at 32; Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d at 134; Clark v. Comm'r, 143 F.3d at 118; Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d at The Commissioner's "treating physician" regulations were approved by the Second Circuit in Schisler ......
-
Cruz v. Colvin
...2010); Foxman v. Barnhart, 157 F. App'x at 346-47; Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d at 32; Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d at 134; Clark v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d at 118; Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d at 503.13 When a treating physician provides a favorable report, the claimant "is entitled to an......
- Young v. Suffolk Cnty.
-
Issue Topics
...to determine whether the additional information that is needed is readily available. Id. In Clark v. Commissioner of Social Sec ., 143 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1998), the Second Circuit held that there was a serious question as to whether the ALJ fulfilled his duty to develop the record as he shou......
-
Assessment of disability issues
...evaluation required for . . . [the claimant’s] medical condition(s).” Id. b. Second Circuit (1) In Clark v. Commissioner of Social Sec ., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998), the Second Circuit noted that the regulations describe the weight to be accorded to the treating physician’s opinion: G......
-
Issue topics
...to determine whether the additional information that is needed is readily available. Id. In Clark v. Commissioner of Social Sec ., 143 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1998), the Second Circuit held that there was a serious question as to whether the ALJ fulfilled his duty to develop the record as he shou......
-
Table of Cases
...2d-09 Clark v. Chater , 75 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir. 1996), §§ 101.1, 205.2, 205.8, 205.9, 210.6, 301.3 Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec ., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998), §§ 202.1, 202.2, 202.3, 202.6, 604.3, 606.1, 606.3, 1202.6 Clark v. Schweiker , 652 F.2d 399, 403 (5th Cir. 1981), 2d-09, § ......