Harrison v. Social Security

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM and ORDER: Harrisons motion 23 is granted, the Commissioners motion 25 is denied, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 8/2/2022. (Innelli, Michael)

Case 1:20-cv-04924-FB Document 28 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1344

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------x
ROBIN SHOALETTE HARRISON,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 20-CV-04924-FB

-againstCOMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------x

Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
CHARLES E. BINDER
Law Office of Charles E.
Binder and Harry J. Binder, LLP
485 Madison Avenue, Suite 105
New York, NY 10022

For the Defendant:
BREON PEACE
United States Attorney
Eastern District of New York
By: SEAN N. STEWART
Special Assistant United States
Attorney
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201

BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Robin Shoalette Harrison (“Harrison”) appeals the Commissioner of Social
Security’s (“Commissioner”) final decision denying her application for Social
Security Benefits. For the following reasons, Harrison’s motion is granted, the

1

Case 1:20-cv-04924-FB Document 28 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1345

Commissioner’s motion is denied, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this Memorandum and Order.
I.
Harrison applied for disability insurance benefits, alleging disability as of
April 4, 2016, due to nerve damage that causes problems in her left shoulder, lower
back, left arm and left hand. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held a hearing on
June 3, 2019 where the plaintiff appeared pro se. The ALJ found Harrison not
disabled. On August 13, 2020, the Appeals Council denied review, and the ALJ’s
decision became the decision of the Commissioner. This action followed.
II.
Remand is warranted for two reasons. First, the ALJ failed to fully develop
the record. Because Social Security proceedings are inquisitional and not
adversarial, ALJs have an obligation to develop the administrative record when gaps
in information exist. See Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Because a
hearing on disability benefits is a non-adversarial proceeding, the ALJ generally has
an affirmative obligation to develop the administrative record.”). Furthermore, since
Harrison appeared pro se, the ALJ had a heightened responsibility to ensure that the
record was fully developed, including obtaining opinions from treating medical
sources:
2

Case 1:20-cv-04924-FB Document 28 Filed 08/02/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1346

When a claimant...proceeds pro se, the ALJ’s duties are
“heightened.” Cruz, 912 F.2d at 11. The ALJ must “adequately
protect a pro se claimant’s rights by ensuring that all of the
relevant facts are sufficiently developed and considered” and by
“scrupulously and conscientiously prob[ing] into, inquir[ing]
of, and explor[ing] for all the relevant facts.” Id.
Moran v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 108, 113 (2d Cir. 2009) (alteration and internal quotation
marks omitted).
In Harrison’s case, the ALJ transgressed by failing to obtain a detailed treating
source’s opinion on her ability to function in a work environment.
[W]hen the claimant appears pro se, the combined force of the
treating physician rule and of the duty to conduct a searching
review requires the ALJ to make every reasonable effort to
obtain not merely medical records of the treating physician
but also a report that sets forth the opinion of that treating
physician as to the existence, the nature and the severity of
the claimed disability.
Peed v. Sullivan, 778 F.Supp. 1241, 1247 (E.D.N.Y. 1991). The ALJ’s failure to
obtain opinions from Harrison’s treating physicians resulted in the ALJ making a
finding that was not supported by sufficient evidence. Therefore, remand for further
consideration is warranted.
Second, in evaluating Harrison’s subjective statements, the ALJ wrongfully
substituted his own judgement of the plaintiff’s capabilities for that of a medical
professional. See Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75, 91 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[I]t is wellsettled that ‘the ALJ cannot arbitrarily substitute his own judgment for competent
3

Case 1:20-cv-04924-FB Document 28 Filed 08/02/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1347

medical opinion...[W]hile an [ALJ] is free to resolve issues of credibility as to lay
testimony or to choose between properly submitted medical opinions, he is not free
to set his own expertise against that of a physician...”) (citing McBrayer v. Sec’y of
HHS., 712 F.2d 795, 799 (2d Cir. 1983)).
The ALJ wrongly concluded that because treatment allowed Harrison to
increase the scope of her daily activities, she must then be capable of full-time,
sustained work. Such a conclusion fails to consider that, as in this case, “[t]here can
be a great distance between a patient who responds to treatment and one who is able
to enter the workforce…” Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739-40 (7th Cir. 2011). See
also Murdaugh v. Sec. of Dep’t of HHS of U.S., 837 F.2d 99, 102 (2d Cir 1988)
(merely because the plaintiff “waters his landlady’s garden, occasionally visits
friends and is able to get on and off an examination table can scarcely be said to
controvert

the

medical

evidence”

in

proving

a

disability).

Also,

20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) lays out seven factors that ALJs are to consider when
assessing how to credit claimants’ subjective statements. Instead of considering
these factors, the ALJ made a conclusory analysis based on his own lay opinion
regarding the extent of Harrison’s disabilities. This is legal error which requires
remand.

4

Case 1:20-cv-04924-FB Document 28 Filed 08/02/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1348

III.
For the aforementioned reasons, Harrison’s motion is granted, the
Commissioner’s motion is denied, and the case is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with this Memorandum and Order.

SO ORDERED.

_/S/ Frederic Block___________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
August 2, 2022

5