Opinion
02 CV 2465 (JG)
September 17, 2003
CHARLES E. BINDER, Binder Binder, P.C., New York, New York, for Plaintiff
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, Brooklyn, New York, for Defendant
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Catherine Boryk, on behalf of her deceased husband Zenon Boryk, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the final determination of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner") that Boryk is not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, and thus is not eligible for disability insurance benefits. The Commissioner has moved, and Catherine Boryk has cross-moved, for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Because substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, the defendant's motion is granted, and the plaintiff's motion is denied.
Unless otherwise indicated, "Boryk" refers to Zenon Boryk.
BACKGROUND
A. Boryk's Personal and Work History
Boryk was born in 1955. He attended college, where he majored in hospital administration. After college, Boryk worked first at Elmhurst Hospital as a supervisor, and later for the United States Postal Service as a letter-sorting-machine operator, distribution clerk, and window clerk. On October 30, 1995, a bundle of letters struck Boryk in the left eye while he was working as window clerk. He did not return to work.
B. Procedural History
Boryk applied for disability insurance benefits on July 15, 1996. He claimed disability due to herniated discs and degenerative changes at C5-C6 and C6-C7, numbness in his left leg, abnormal right and left median nerves, diabetes, and TMJ. The Social Security Administration denied Boryk's application initially and on reconsideration. On March 11, 1998, Boryk appeared with counsel at a hearing before Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Kenneth G. Levin. On March 20, 1998, the ALJ found that Boryk was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. That decision became final when the Appeals Council denied Boryk's request for review.
TMJ is the colloquial abbreviation for temporomandibular joint syndrome, which is "[a] disturbance of the temporomandibular joint (the joint between the lower jawbone and the skull), marked by pain in the joint and the ear." 5 J.E. Schmidt, M.D., Attorneys' Dictionary of Medicine and Word Finder T-42 (2002).
C. Review of the Evidence
1. Treating Physician Evidence
Dr. Edward Shen, an opthalmologist, examined Boryk on October 31, 1995, one day after the bundle of letters hit him in the eye. Boryk complained to Dr. Shen of eye pain, headache, tearing, photophobia, and blurred vision in the left eye. (R. 189, repeated at R. 215, 216.) Dr. Shen diagnosed Boryk with a traumatic orbital contusion, simple conjunctivitis of the left eye, post-concussion syndrome, and post-traumatic eye injury. (R. 189-90, repeated at R. 215, 216.) The doctor recommended a neurological consultation. (R. 217.) On workers' compensation forms dated November 2, 1995 and December 7, 1995, Dr. Shen indicated that Boryk was totally disabled. (R. 215, 293.)
The standards that govern workers' compensation relief differ from those that govern the award of disability benefits. Romano v. Apfel, No. 99-CV-2689 (LMM), 2001 WL 199412, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Workers' compensation relates to the individual's prior employment and measures his ability to perform the regular duties of that employment. Such determinations do not consider the ability to perform other employment, as do Social Security Act disability determinations like the one at issue in this case. Id.: see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). Therefore, the ALJ need only consider indications of Boryk's disability on workers' compensation forms as opinions that Boryk is unable to perform his past work and not as opinions that he cannot perform any other work in the national economy.
Dr. Jose Acevedo, a neurologist, treated Boryk beginning November 4, 1995. Dr. Acevedo noted Boryk's history of diabetes and his complaints of severe headaches and neck pain. (R. 158, repeated at R. 252.) Dr. Acevedo performed a neurological examination, reporting that Boryk demonstrated worsening neck pain with decreased range of neck motion but that Boryk's cranial nerves, motor function, sensation, reflexes, and coordination were intact. (R. 159, repeated at R. 253, 319; R. 220.) A December 13, 1995 CAT scan showed evidence of posterior disc herniation and degenerative changes at C5-C6 and C6-C7. (R. 161, repeated at R. 240, 307.) On January 23, 1996, Dr. Acevedo performed EMG and nerve conduction velocity studies of Boryk's upper extremities. (R. 246-49, repeated in part at R. 162-3; R. 312-15.) The nerve conduction studies indicated abnormal right and left median nerves. (R. 247.) The EMG was normal. (R. 249.) Dr. Acevedo concluded on February 29, 1996 that Boryk suffered from herniated discs at C5-C6 and C6-C7, post-traumatic headaches, as well as chronic spasm and inflammation of the cervical paraspinal muscle. (R. 160,repeated at R. 254, 320.) Dr. Acevedo recommended physical therapy and indicated that Boryk was unable to perform any duty. (Id., R. 192, 195, 196.) On workers' compensation forms dated November 14, 1995 (R. 194), November 21, 1995 (R. 196), December 12, 1995 (R. 199), January 9, 1996 (R. 202), and February 6, 1996 (R. 206), Dr. Acevedo indicated that Boryk was totally disabled.
Upon the recommendation of Dr. Acevedo, Dr. Sydney Goldman, an orthopedist, treated Boryk briefly, beginning on January 15, 1996. Dr. Goldman's neurological examination showed intact sensation and normal reflexes (R. 283) and his physical examination revealed some tenderness in Boryk's neck. (Id., R. 262, 283.) Dr. Goldman's impression was that Boryk had a cervical disc problem and TMJ syndrome. (R. 283.) On April 29, 1996, Dr. Goldman wrote that Boryk's ability to lift was limited to five pounds at long intervals. (R. 329.) On July 18, 1996, Dr. Goldman altered that assessment, writing that Boryk could "return to work whenever possible," but he should "avoid heavy weight lifting." (R. 283.) On that same day, however, Dr. Goldman indicated on a workers' compensation form that Boryk was totally disabled. (R. 262.repeated at R. 284, 334, 719.)
Beginning June 4, 1996, Boryk underwent regular physical therapy at Sports Medicine Orthopaedic Rehabilitation, under the supervision of Drs. Christopher Kyriakides and John Shumko. Following an initial physical examination, Dr. Kyriakides reported that Boryk had a mildly antalgic gait, paraspinal contractures that were worse on the right side, tender points and trigger points, weakness in the right upper extremity distally, and a decrease in light touch in dermatomal patterns of C5, C6, and C7. (Id.) As part of the examination, the doctor elicited a positive Spurling's maneuver, but he found intact reflexes in Boryk's biceps and triceps bilaterally. (Id.) Dr. Kyriakides diagnosed two herniated cervical discs with neurological deficits, TMJ syndrome, and post-concussion syndrome. (R. 155.) The doctor indicated in his examination notes that Boryk was totally disabled. (R. 155,repeated at R. 258, 266, 339.)
According to the plaintiff's memoranda, a Spurling's maneuver is a test for cervical radiculopathy performed by placing downwards pressure on the patient's head. The maneuver is positive if it causes pain.
Dr. Kyriakides, Dr. Shumko and their associates continued to treat Boryk through December 21, 1999 and to report that he was totally disabled. In November 1996, Dr. Kyriakides interpreted an SSEP test of Boryk's cervical spine as suggestive of right-sided cervical radiculopathy. (R. 271.) In April 1997, he found an SSEP test of Boryk's lumbosacral spine suggestive of bilateral lumbar radiculopathy. (R. 274, 355-58.) On July 17, 1997, Dr. Kyriakides found an MRI of Boryk's cervical spine indicative of a minimum central disc bulge at the C4-C5 level and a central herniated disc compressing the anterior aspect of the spinal cord at the C5-C6 level. (R. 276-77.) On that same day (Id.), and again on November 12, 1998 (R. 884), April 13, 1998 (R. 572), and March 8, 1999 (R. 620), Drs. Kyriakides and Shumko elicited positive Spurling's maneuvers during their examinations of Boryk. From June 11, 1996 through November 20, 1998, Dr. Kyriakides indicated on fourteen workers' compensation forms that Boryk was totally disabled. (See R. 341, 343-46, 348-50, 352-54, 359-60, 363-67, 756-57, 773-75, 791-92.) On a form dated July 1, 1996, Dr. Kyriakides specifically indicated that Boryk was unable to sit, stand, or walk for more than one-half hour a day. (R. 342.) On a form dated August 7, 1996, Dr. Kyriakides increased his estimate of Boryk's ability to sit to four hours a day and his estimate of Boryk's ability to stand to one and one-half hours a day. (R. 344.) On all subsequent workers' compensation forms the doctor crossed out the section related to Boryk's residual functional capacity in its entirety, ostensibly indicating that Boryk had none.
SSEP is the colloquial abbreviation for somatosensory evoked potential. A somatosensory evoked potential test is a test of the "[e]lectrical voltage produced by stimulating a (peripheral) nerve of the body." 5 J.E. Schmidt, M.D., Attorneys' Dictionary of Medicine and Word Finder, supra, at S-206.
Dr. John Buonocore, an osteopath, treated Boryk regularly from July 25, 1997 through December 22, 1999. Dr. Buonocore found that Boryk had severe paraspinal spasm, limitations of motion, and multiple trigger points with evidence of nerve root compression at several levels. (R. 368.) Dr. Buonocore felt that these symptoms were consistent with cervical radiculopathy and cervical myofascial pain syndrome. (R. 611,repeated at R. 625.) On April 30, 1998 and July 7, 1998, Dr. Buonocore evaluated Boryk's residual functional capacity. (R. 569-70, 584-85.) On April 30, he reported that Boryk could stand, walk, or sit for only one hour in an eight-hour workday and lift no more then five pounds. Dr. Buonocore estimated that Boryk could bend, climb steps, and reach occasionally but noted that Boryk could not use his left hand for grasping, pushing, pulling, or for similar manipulations. (R. 569.) In the July 7 residual functional capacity assessment, Dr. Buonocore increased his estimate of Boryk's ability to stand and walk in an eight-hour day to two hours, Boryk's ability to sit during that time to three hours, and Boryk's ability to lift and carry to five to ten pounds. (R. 584-85) Dr. Buonocore maintained throughout his course of treatment that Boryk was totally disabled and unable to perform any meaningful employment. (R. 611, repeated at R. 625.)
From November 6 through December 16, 1997, Boryk was hospitalized at St. John's Hospital for osteomyelitis and cellulitis in his left shoulder. (R. 372, 401-536.)
2. Examining Physician Evidence
Dr. Reza Khatib, a neurologist, examined Boryk on May 16, 1996. At that time, Boryk continued to complain of neck pain and headaches, but had no difficulty walking, and no numbness or weakness. (R. 255.) Dr. Khatib noted mild limitation of cervical motion and mild cervical spasm, though Boryk's cranial nerves, motor function, sensation, reflexes, and coordination remained intact. (R. 256.) The doctor diagnosed post-head-trauma syndrome, whiplash injury, and noted the need to rule out disc herniation. (Id.) Dr. Khatib requested an MRI of the cervical spine. (Id.) Dr. Khatib opined that Boryk could return to work, provided he not lift more than fifty pounds. (Id.)
3. Consulting Physician Evidence
On April 12, 1996, Dr. Kenneth Seslowe, an orthopedist, examined Boryk in connection with Boryk's workers' compensation claim. Boryk stated that his headaches had subsided but that he still suffered from pain and stiffness in his neck, tenderness, and restricted rotation. (R. 374-75.) Dr. Seslowe's examination revealed no spasm or rigidity in Boryk's neck. (Id.) The examination showed full neck flexibility, extension, and lateral bending, full shoulder motion and strength, and full elbow, wrist, and finger motion. (Id.) The doctor found normal motor and sensory examination throughout the upper extremities. (Id.) Dr. Seslowe diagnosed cervical strain, opining that Boryk could return to work as a postal clerk, provided he not lift more than fifty pounds. (R. 375, 377.) Dr. Seslowe further opined that Boryk had "received maximum benefit from therapy and treatment and this could be stopped." (R. 375.)
On April 29, 1996, Dr. David Snyder, a neurologist, examined Boryk in connection with Boryk's workers' compensation claim. Dr. Snyder found that Boryk's nerves, motor function, sensation, and reflexes were intact. (R. 380.) The doctor stated that he found no evidence of either neurologic impairment or disability. (Id.) Dr. Snyder reviewed the results of the CAT scan, EMG, and nerve conduction studies administered by Dr. Acevedo and noted that these tests evidenced neither cervical radiculopathy nor nerve root compression. (Id.) Dr. Snyder explained that these tests were, however, consistent with a sub-clinical carpal tunnel syndrome common to diabetics. (Id.) The doctor opined that Boryk could return to work, provided he not lift more than fifty pounds. (Id.)
On August 20, 1996, Dr. Kyung Seo, an orthopedist, examined Boryk. Dr. Seo noted that Boryk stood up from a sitting position, walked into the examination room, and got on and off the examination table, all without difficulty. (R. 164.) The doctor did, however, note some limitation in the flexibility of Boryk's cervical and lumbosacral spine. (R. 164-65.) Dr. Seo examined Boryk's upper body, and reported that Boryk's shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints were capable of both full strength and a normal range of motion, though elevation of his shoulder evinced pain. (Id.) Dr. Seo also examined Boryk's lower body, reporting no atrophy or sensory deficit, and normal ranges of motion in the hip, knee, and ankle joints. (R. 165.) Based upon this physical examination, Dr. Seo diagnosed myofascial pain of the neck, causing difficulty with sitting, standing, and bending. (Id.) A concurrent radiographic examination showed a slight narrowing of Boryk's C6-C7 interspace consistent with the presence of disc disease. (R. 166.)
In a report dated August 28, 1996, a state agency review physician evaluated Boryk's residual functional capacity. The doctor opined that Boryk had no exertional, postural, manipulative, visual, communicative, or environmental limitations. (R. 168-171.)
In a report dated October 23, 1996, another state agency review physician evaluated Boryk's residual functional capacity. That doctor opined that Boryk could occasionally lift and/or carry twenty pounds, frequently lift and/or carry ten pounds, and stand and/or walk and sit for about six hours each in an eight-hour workday. (R. 178.)
4. Boryk's Testimony
Boryk testified at the hearing on March 11, 1998. He stated that he could no longer work due to pain radiating through his head, neck, clavicles, and shoulders (primarily on the right side), down through the left side of his lower back, and through his left leg all the way to his toes, as well as numbness in his hands and knees. (R. 66-70.) Boryk added that this pain was always present, and that walking or sitting for extended periods of time made the pain worse. (R. 69-71.) Boryk also asserted significant side effects from the medications he was taking, including "disorientation," "dizziness," and feeling "cloudy, unfocused, and sleepy." (R. 78-79.)
Boryk informed the ALJ that he lived with his wife and two children in a second-floor apartment. (R. 56.) Boryk stated that his ability to walk was limited to "sometimes . . . just a few steps," sometimes a half a block, but "at the most . . . maybe a block or two." (R. 78.) Although he usually traveled by bus, Boryk rode the subway to the administrative hearing. During the hearing Boryk remarked to the ALJ that the pain during the ride was "excruciating." (R. 77.) Boryk testified that he experienced great difficulty in dressing himself and that he was unable to perform any household chores. (R. 82, 89.) He stated that his typical activities consisted of going to see his doctor or therapist, going to buy the newspaper, reading, watching television, and taking naps. (R. 88.)
5. Expert Testimony
Dr. Charles Plotz testified as a medical expert at the hearing. The ALJ introduced Dr. Plotz, who did not treat or examine Boryk, to evaluate Boryk's condition based on the medical record and Boryk's testimony at the hearing. According to Dr. Plotz, Boryk's medically determinable impairments were herniated discs at C5-C6 and C6-C7, and a condition of osteoarthritis that preceded his accident. (R. 90.) The doctor testified that there was "no way" that Boryk's complaints of pain in his lower extremities were connected to any neck injury, (id.) and that both Boryk's complaints and symptomology were "far in excess" of anything that could be established on the basis of test results. (R. 93.) The doctor opined that Boryk was able to sit without restriction, stand without restriction as long as he were not jarred, walk for two hours in an eight-hour work day, reach without restriction, and lift and carry up to ten pounds frequently. (R. 95-97.) The doctor further testified that Boryk's medication would, at most, cause some drowsiness "for an hour or so." (R. 100.)
William Mooney testified as a vocational expert at the hearing. (R. 101-10.) The ALJ asked Mr. Mooney to identify jobs at the sedentary and light exertional levels that could be performed by a person of Boryk's age, education, and prior work experience who is limited to simple and unskilled jobs that are routine and repetitive in nature. (R. 103.) According to Mr. Mooney, the sedentary jobs were tending automatic machinery, performing quality control, and monitoring surveillance systems, while the light jobs were tending automatic machinery, performing quality control, and working as an interior security guard. (R. 105-06.)
The Social Security Act classifies jobs as sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy. Sedentary jobs involve "sitting, a certain amount of walking and standing," and lifting "no more than ten pounds at a time." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567. Light jobs involve "lifting no more than twenty pounds at a time" and either "a good deal of walking or standing," or "sitting most of the time with some pushing or pulling of arm or leg controls." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567.
D. The ALJ's Decision
The ALJ evaluated Boryk's claim pursuant to the five-step evaluation process for determining a disability under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520, and determined that Boryk had the residual functional capacity to work, provided that he not lift or carry more than ten pounds frequently, be unduly "jarred" while standing, walk for more than two hours in an eight-hour workday, or perform more than simple, unskilled jobs that are more than routine and repetitive in nature. (R. 46.) Although he found Boryk unable to perform his past relevant work as a postal clerk or hospital supervisor, the ALJ found that Boryk could perform other work in the national economy, specifically, those jobs identified by Mr. Mooney.
E. Evidence Submitted to the Appeals Council After the ALJ's Decision
On January 12, 1998, Dr. Lawrence Miller, a consultative orthopedic surgeon, examined Boryk at the request of Arrow Claims Services, Inc. Boryk complained of intermittent pain in his cervical spine, lumbosacral spine, left and right shoulders, and left knee area, and numbness in both his hands and his left knee. (R. 937.) Dr. Miller's physical examination, however, revealed that Boryk's motor function, sensation, and reflexes were intact, and evidenced no spasm in either Boryk's lower back or cervical spine. (R. 938.) Dr. Miller diagnosed resolved cervical, lumbosacral, bilateral shoulder and left knee strain and sprain. (R. 939.) The doctor reported that Boryk's subjective complaints were not supported by his findings and opined that Boryk was "capable of working on a full-time basis and resuming his pre-accident activities of daily living, with no restrictions or limitations." (Id.)
On March 6, 1998, Dr. Norman Heyman, a consultative orthopedist, examined Boryk in connection with Boryk's workers' compensation claim. Boryk complained of pain in his head, neck, back, shoulders, arms, hands, left leg, and left knee. (R. 846.) Dr. Heyman diagnosed acute cervical strain and sprain, herniated discs in the C5-C6 and C6-C7 areas, diabetes mellitus, and peripheral neuropathy in Boryk's lower extremities, which the doctor attributed to the diabetes. (R. 848.) Dr. Heyman found that Boryk was capable of a full range of motion in his lower extremities, but that cervical syndrome and lumbar syndrome had limited his range of motion in his back and upper extremities. (Id.) Dr. Heyman stated that though Boryk suffered herniated discs, he was not disabled as result of his injury and could return to his job as a postal clerk. (Id.) The doctor opined that Boryk was able to sit, walk, and stand for eight hours each in a day, and could push, pull, and lift up to twenty-five pounds. (R. 766.)
Dr. Shahid Mian, an orthopedic surgeon, examined Boryk on March 26, 1998, and conducted regular follow-up examinations with him through October 19, 1999. Dr. Mian found tenderness and muscle spasm in Boryk's cervical spine, but noted that Boryk's motor function, sensation, and reflexes were intact (R. 591.) Dr. Mian consistently diagnosed Boryk with a herniated disc at C5-C6 and a bulging disc at C4-C5, while noting his osteomyelitis and resultant left shoulder problems. (See R. 589-96, 599-600, 622-23, 665-69, 817-20.)
On February 12, 1999, Dr. Stanley Ross, a consultative orthopedist, examined Boryk in connection with Boryk's workers' compensation claim. Boryk complained of pain in his neck, shoulders, and side. (R. 661.) Dr. Ross found that Boryk's ability to rotate laterally and move his left arm was partially restricted. (Id.) The doctor opined that Boryk was only mildly disabled, and estimated that Boryk could sit for four hours and stand for one hour in an eight-hour workday. (Id.)
DISCUSSION
A. The Standard of Review
The role of a district court in reviewing the Commissioner's final decision on a claimant's disability application is limited. "A district court may set aside the Commissioner's determination that a claimant is not disabled only if the factual findings are not supported by `substantial evidence' or if the decision is based on legal error."Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 2000); see also 42 U.S.C. § 4O5(g). "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). If substantial evidence supports the ALJ's findings, the decision is binding, Townley v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 109, 112 (2d Cir. 1984), and the district court cannot "substitute its own judgment for that of the [Commissioner], even if it might justifiably have reached a different result upon a de novo review." Jones v. Sullivan, 949 F.2d 57, 59 (2d Cir. 1991) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
B. Establishing a Disability
"To receive federal disability benefits, an applicant must be `disabled' within the meaning of the Act." Shaw, 221 F.3d at 131; see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(a), (d). A claimant is "disabled" within the meaning of the Act when he or she can show an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment . . . which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." § 423(d)(1)(A). The impairment must be of "such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
As stated above, the Commissioner uses a five-step analysis to determine whether a claimant is "disabled" under the Act. Shaw, 221 F.3d at 132 (citing the five steps with approval); Curry, 209 F.3d at 122 (same). First, the claimant must not be engaged in substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). Second, the claimant must show a "severe impairment" which significantly limits his or her mental or physical ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 4O4.152O(c). Third, the claimant must establish either that the impairment is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations or that the impairment is equivalent to a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). Fourth, if the impairment is neither listed in the Appendix nor the equivalent of an impairment listed in the Appendix, the claimant must show that he or she lacks the residual functional capacity to perform his or her past work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). Fifth, if the claimant makes that showing, the Commissioner must determine if there is other work in the national economy which the claimant can perform. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). The claimant has the burden of proving the first four steps; the Commissioner bears the burden of proof on the last step. Shaw, 221 F.3d at 132.
In making the required determinations, the Commissioner must consider: (1) the objective medical facts; (2) the medical opinions of the examining or treating physicians; (3) the subjective evidence of the claimant's symptoms submitted by the claimant, his family, and others; and (4) the claimant's educational background, age, and work experience. Carroll v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 705 F.2d 63 8, 642 (2d Cir. 1983).
In the ordinary case where the inquiry reaches step five in the analysis, the Commissioner will apply the medical vocational guidelines provided in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App. 2 ("the grids") to the claimant's residual functional capacity, age, education, and work experience in order to determine what type of work the claimant is capable of performing. Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir. 1999). When the Commissioner introduces and considers the testimony of a vocational expert in addition to applying the grids, that testimony provides even more substantial support for the Commissioner's fifth-step determination. See id.
The ALJ undertook the appropriate inquiry at each step in this case. He concluded that Boryk had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the October 30, 1995 injury, and that although Boryk suffered from a "severe" combination of disc disease and post-traumatic headaches, he did not have a listed impairment or one that equaled the level of severity of a listed impairment. He then determined that Boryk could not perform his previous work. Finally, based on the medical evidence, doctors' reports, and Boryk's testimony, the ALJ determined that Boryk retained a residual functional capacity that allowed him to perform a full range of sedentary work and a partial range of light work. Consulting the grids and considering the testimony of Mr. Mooney, the ALJ concluded that Boryk was not entitled to benefits.
In the process of rejecting Boryk's claim, the ALJ placed little value on the medical opinions of Boryk's treating physicians. While the law "gives special evidentiary weight to the opinion of the treating physician," Clark v. Commissioner, 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998), a treating physician's opinion must be given controlling weight only if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic examinations and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 503-04 (2d Cir. 1998). "[T]he less consistent that opinion is with the record as a whole, the less weight it will be given." Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d. Cir. 1999). In this case, the ALJ specifically noted the lack of corroborating medical evidence for the opinions of Boryk's treating physicians and the inconsistency of those opinions with the other evidence in the record. (R. 43.) Accordingly, the ALJ accepted the testimony of Dr. Plotz regarding Boryk's residual functional capacity, rather than the opinions of Boryk's treating physicians, as controlling. (Id.)
When a treating physician's opinion is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner must consider various factors in determining what weight to give the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). These factors include: (1) the frequency of examinations and the extent of the relationship between the physician and patient; (2) the other evidence in the record; (3) the opinion's consistency with that evidence; and (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist. Schaal, 134 F.3d at 503. The ALJ considered these factors and found that the conclusions proffered by Boryk's treating physicians were not adequately supported by those doctors' clinical notes, and that virtually all of the examination records, including the records of Boryk's treating physicians, suggested that Boryk suffered from no neurological disorder. (R. 43.) The ALJ's reasons for giving little weight to Boryk's treating physicians' opinions are set forth in the ALJ's opinion (id.) and are supported by Boryk's medical record as a whole. I conclude that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the ALJ's decision to assign little value to the medical opinions of Boryk's treating physicians in assessing his residual functional capacity.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, and plaintiff's cross-motion is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
So ordered.