Summary
rejecting contention that vision issues should have been part of RFC where recommended restriction came from consultative examiner who was "not an expert in the field" and specialist determined that Plaintiff's best corrected visual acuity was 20/20 in both eyes
Summary of this case from Negron v. SaulOpinion
18 CIVIL 12102 (PGG) (DCF)
03-25-2020
LUZ MARIA SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
JUDGMENT
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons set forth in the Court's Order dated March 20, 2020, Judge Freeman's R & R is adopted in its entirety; Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted to the extent that this case is remanded for further proceedings, as set forth below and in the R & R (Dkt. No. 74); Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied; the case is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings. On remand, the ALJ is
(1) to conduct a thorough review of the medical record of Plaintiff's treatment at the All Med and Damian clinics, taking in to account, the totality of the findings and prescriptions reported in Plaintiff's treatment notes - including, but not limited to, any findings related to Plaintiff's degenerative/chronic back conditions and Plaintiff's obesity, and her medications for pain management - that may be material to her exertional impairments;(5) to reconsider Plaintiff's RFC, consistent with the above; and (6) if necessary, to recall the VE for additional testimony to evaluate whether Plaintiff's reassessed RFC would preclude employment for Plaintiff during the relevant time period. Dated: New York, New York
(2) to seek clarification of any handwritten treatment notes regarding Plaintiff's physical conditions that the ALJ finds illegible and that may be material to an assessment of the extent of her exertional impairments;
(3) to solicit a functional assessment, particularly with respect to Plaintiff's ability to stand, walk, and lift, from Dr. Rodriguez Ospina, or from one of the other physicians who treated Plaintiff regularly, during the relevant period, for her physical impairments;
(4) to reassess Plaintiff's subjective complaints with respect to her pain and resulting physical limitations, in accordance with the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), and in light of the totality of the medical record; and
March 25, 2020
RUBY J. KRAJICK
Clerk of Court
BY: /s/ _________
Deputy Clerk