Yancey v. Apfel
| Decision Date | 22 May 1998 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 97-6103 |
| Citation | 145 F.3d 106 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 16025B Burnette YANCEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security * Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Appeal from a judgment and order of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Dorsey, C.J.) affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security 1 that plaintiff was not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, and denying plaintiff's motion for rehearing, the district court having determined that the decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the Administrative Law Judge (1) did not abuse his discretion by denying plaintiff's request to subpoena her treating physician to testify and (2) did not err in failing to refer plaintiff for either a psychiatric or psychological evaluation.
Robert S. Reger, Rolnick & Reger, Hamden, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Deirdre A. Martini, Asst. U.S. Atty., District of Connecticut, Bridgeport, CT, (Christopher F. Droney, U.S. Atty., District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, on brief; Amy S. Knopf, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Sec. Admin., Boston, MA, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: MINER and PARKER, Circuit Judges, and DEARIE, District Judge. **
Plaintiff Burnette Yancey appeals from a judgment and order entered in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Dorsey, C.J.). The order and judgment adopted the magistrate judge's recommended ruling affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that Yancey was not under a disability as defined in the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., as amended. The district court found that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") was supported by substantial evidence and that (1) the ALJ did not abuse his discretion in refusing to subpoena Yancey's treating physician to testify at the administrative hearing and (2) the ALJ did not err in failing to refer Yancey for either a psychiatric or psychological evaluation.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Plaintiff Burnette Yancey was born on July 19, 1950. Her formal education did not extend beyond the tenth grade. She has since worked as a machine operator, riveter, solderer, and machine inspector. She last worked in 1989 as an aircraft parts inspector for the Pratt & Whitney division of United Technologies Corporation. In early 1988, Yancey developed pain in her knees, wrists, hands and shoulders and experienced morning stiffness, fatigue and weight loss.
In a written opinion dated April 18, 1988, internist/ rheumatologist, Dr. Robert Schoen, stated that it was his impression that Yancey was suffering from inflammatory arthritis, "possibly systemic lupus erythematosus" ("SLE" or "lupus"). 2 On March 7, 1989, Dr. Schoen diagnosed Yancey with active SLE, and, among other treatments, prescribed prednisone, an anti-inflammatory. An anti-nuclear antibodies ("ANA") sample taken on March 7, 1989, was "not definitive" of an SLE diagnosis. On April 20, 1989, Dr. Schoen added corticosteroid therapy to Yancey's treatment regimen. In June of 1989, Dr. Schoen again reported that Yancey was manifesting symptoms of active SLE.
On August 23, 1989, Yancey filed an application for disability benefits with the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), alleging an inability to work since January of 1988 as a result of rheumatoid arthritis and SLE. She thereafter was referred for a consultative examination, which was performed by Dr. Joseph Ayoub in October of 1989, at the request of the SSA. Yancey again reported pain and cramping in her extremities. Dr. Ayoub noted evidence of swelling and tenderness in Yancey's hands and feet, with a decrease in motor power and a loss of range of motion of her hands. However, X-rays taken by Dr. Ayoub revealed no abnormalities. Dr. Ayoub diagnosed lupus "by history" only, and opined that Yancey should have restrictions in carrying, lifting, handling, holding, pushing, pulling with her hands, as well as walking, standing, climbing and balancing. The SSA denied Yancey's application for benefits on November 9, 1989, based on its determination that the evidence of record did "not show any significant 100% disabling disease that would interfere in [Yancey's] ability to engage in all types of employment."
In January of 1991, Yancey was examined at the Yale University School of Medicine's Rheumatology Clinic (the "rheumatology clinic"). Yancey showed no signs of rheumatoid arthritis or SLE, but exhibited minimal tenderness in her right wrist, biceps muscle and epigastric region. On March 13, 1991, Yancey began receiving treatment from Dr. Raymond Wong and the Hill Health Center ("HHC") staff in New Haven, Connecticut. At that time, Yancey complained that her joint pain had worsened. Dr. Wong noted Dr. Schoen's prior diagnosis of SLE, but only found evidence of tenderness in Yancey's left ankle and foot and in her right elbow. Dr. Wong prescribed prednisone and ibuprofen (Motrin).
Yancey filed a second application for disability benefits on April 15, 1992, alleging an inability to work since April 18, 1989. A report prepared for the State of Connecticut Disability Determination Services dated May 8, 1992, indicated that although Yancey had "some arthralgia," 3 she did not fit the criteria for SLE. Notes from the HHC dated June 23, 1992, presumably Dr. Wong's, contain the following statement: "I am not convinced of SLE [diagnosis]." Because Yancey reported that the prednisone helped relieve her pain, its continued use was prescribed.
In June of 1992, internist Dr. Francisco Carbone performed a consultative examination of Yancey at the request of the SSA. His examination found no evidence of wrist, digital or elbow tenderness, and no evidence of swelling. Dr. Carbone concluded that there was "no evidence of physical impairment which would restrict [Yancey] from any type of work related activities." On July 28, 1992, Yancey's second application was denied, the SSA having concluded from the evidence that Yancey was able to continue performing her work as a parts inspector. On September 10, 1992, Yancey filed a request for reconsideration.
Notes from the HHC dated September 21, 1992 indicate a history of SLE, but also indicate that Yancey manifested no symptoms of SLE other than arthralgia. On November 3, 1992, Dr. Wong completed a questionnaire for the State of Connecticut Disability Determination Services regarding Yancey's condition. He noted the presence of "multiple arthralgia" and indicated that Yancey had a history of SLE, "apparently diagnosed by Dr. Robert Schoen."
On December 23, 1992, the SSA again determined that Yancey was not disabled and was capable of returning to work. Yancey filed a request for an administrative hearing on March 3, 1993. On July 16, 1993, a hearing was held before an ALJ. The ALJ issued a written decision on October 26, 1993, in which he denied Yancey's requests to subpoena Dr. Wong and to have a consultative examination of Yancey performed by another rheumatologist. The ALJ also made the following determination:
The medical evidence establishes the claimant has been diagnosed in the past as subject to [SLE] with arthralgia and arthritis.... However, other physicians have questioned this diagnosis.... Her impairments, individually or in combination, do not meet or equal the requirements of any impairment listed in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulations No. 4 [].
The ALJ determined that Yancey retained at least the capacity to perform sedentary work. 4 In so doing, the ALJ found Yancey's testimony of severe pain and concomitant functional limitations not to be fully credible in light of the contradictory information provided by Dr. Carbone and Dr. Wong. The ALJ then considered Yancey's vocational profile (age, education, past work experience and residual functional capacity) and determined that Yancey was not "disabled" as defined in the Social Security Act. 5
Yancey timely submitted an application requesting review of the decision by the SSA Appeals Council ("Appeals Council"). Attached to the application was a letter from Yancey's attorney in which it was argued that because SLE is difficult to detect, Yancey was entitled to have the case remanded with an order for a subpoena either requiring a narrative report from Dr. Wong or requiring Dr. Wong to testify regarding his medical reports. Yancey's attorney also argued that Yancey was entitled to an additional consultative examination by a rheumatologist.
In January of 1994, Yancey again visited the rheumatology clinic, where it was determined that though there was evidence of some muscle tenderness, all joints showed full range of motion without inflammation. Radiological studies were normal. When Yancey was again examined at the rheumatology clinic in March of 1994, all of her joints were determined to be normal. At that time, Yancey was also tapering her use of prednisone successfully. Dr. Christina Brunet, of the rheumatology clinic explained that "[d]uring the time that [Yancey] has attended the Yale clinic she has not demonstrated any clinical signs of active arthritis or lupus."
In an order dated March 4, 1994, the Appeals Council remanded the case to "[f]urther evaluate the claimant's subjective complaints and provide rationale in accordance with the disability regulations pertaining to evaluation of symptoms (20 C.F.R. § 404.1529) and Social Security Ruling 88-13." 6
In response to Yancey's attorney's requests, Dr. Wong forwarded to the attorney a letter dated June 2, 1994, in which he stated:
Ms. Yancey as far as I know does not have active [SLE]. She has arthralgia which is joint pain but I have not documented any signs of arthritis or joint inflammation. Multiple [...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guilbe v. Colvin
...position, a court must uphold the ALJ's decision if there is substantial evidence to support the defendant's position. Yancy v. Apfel, 145 F.3d 106, 111 (2d Cir. 1998). The substantial evidence standard means once an ALJ finds facts, a reviewing court may reject those facts "only if a reaso......
-
Deronde v. Astrue
...records for that of the Commissioner when the record contains substantial support for the ALJ's decision. Yancey v. Apfel, 145 F.3d 106, 111 (2d Cir. 1998). Rather, in such circumstances, courts must defer to the Commissioner's resolution of conflicting evidence. See Behling v. Commissioner......
-
Cook v. Colvin, 13-CV-1946 (TPG) (RLE)
...a court must uphold the ALJ's decision if there is substantial evidence to support the defendant's position. See Yancy v. Apfel, 145 F.3d 106, 111 (2d Cir. 1998). The substantial evidence standard means that once an ALJ finds facts, a reviewing court may reject those facts "only if a reason......
-
Hicks v. Colvin
...even on the Supreme Court, on what ambiguous statutory provisions mean[.]").6 The SSA mentions three other cases, none persuasive here. Yancey, which the SSA cites as a Sixth Circuit case but is actually from the Second Circuit, merely adopts Flatford. See Yancey v. Apfel, 145 F.3d 106, 113......
-
Issue Topics
...to subpoena a treating and reporting physician as to whether the claimant actually suffered from lupus was proper. Yancey v. Apfel , 145 F.3d 106, 116 (2d Cir. 1998). Fifth Circuit In Newton , the Fifth Circuit noted that the ALJ improperly ignored the claimant’s “claims of severe fatigue, ......
-
Specific impairments issues
...satisfactorily considered the possibility of the claimant’s suffering from a medically determinable mental impairment. Yancey v. Apfel , 145 F.3d 106, §312.2 SOCIAL SECURITY ISSUES ANNOTATED II-410 114 (2d Cir. 1998). In Yancey , the court noted that the claimant provided no evidence of a p......
-
Issue topics
...to subpoena a treating and reporting physician as to whether the claimant actually suffered from lupus was proper. Yancey v. Apfel , 145 F.3d 106, 116 (2d Cir. 1998). Fifth Circuit In Newton , the Fifth Circuit noted that the ALJ improperly ignored the claimant’s “claims of severe fatigue, ......
-
Table of Cases
...208.1, 208.4, 208.5, 210.10, 1106.4 Wyrick v. Comm’r of SSA , 165 F.3d 913 (Table) (4th Cir. Nov. 17, 1998), § 1106.4 Yancey v. Apfel , 145 F.3d 106, 111 (2d Cir. 1998), §§ 312.2, 503.6, 504.6, 1311.2, 1505 Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky , 606 F.3d 994, 1005 (8th Cir. 2010), 8th-10 Yawit......