15-83-cv 

Guerra v. Colvin 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

SUMMARY ORDER 1 RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. 

2 CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS 

3 PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE 

4 PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A 

5 SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST 

6 CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE 

7 (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A 

8 SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT 

9 REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

10 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at 

11 the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 

on the 14th 12 day of October, two thousand fifteen. 

13 

14 PRESENT: 

15 GUIDO CALABRESI, 

16 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 

17 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 

18 Circuit Judges.

19 _________________________________________ 

20 

21 JUSTINE GUERRA, 22 

23 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

24 

25 v. No. 15-83-cv 

26 

27 CAROLYN COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF

28 SOCIAL SECURITY, 

29 

30 Defendant-Appellee. 

31 _________________________________________

32 

33 FOR APPELLANT: MARK SCHNEIDER, Plattsburgh, NY. 

34 

35 FOR APPELLEE: LAUREN E. MYERS, Special Assistant 

36 United States Attorney (Stephen P. Conte, 

37 Regional Chief Counsel, Office of the 
 

2 

1 General Counsel, Social Security 

2 Administration, New York, NY, on the 

3 brief), for Richard S. Hartunian, United 

4 States Attorney for the Northern District 

5 of New York, Syracuse, NY. 

6 

7 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District 

8 of New York (David E. Peebles, Magistrate Judge). 

9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

10 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on January 7, 2015, is 

11 AFFIRMED. 

12 Plaintiff Justine Guerra challenges the District Court’s affirmance of the Acting 

13 Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for disability benefits. Guerra 

14 contends that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in concluding that she was not 

15 disabled, as defined by the Social Security Act, from July 7, 2010, through August 14, 2012, 

16 the date of the ALJ decision. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 

17 and the procedural history of the case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our 

18 decision to affirm. 

19 “When deciding an appeal from a denial of disability benefits, we focus on the 

20 administrative ruling rather than the district court’s opinion.” McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 

21 146, 149 (2d Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the administrative 

22 record de novo, asking whether the ALJ applied the correct legal standard and whether 

23 substantial evidence supports his decision. Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402, 408 (2d Cir. 2010). 

24 We define “substantial evidence” as evidence amounting to “more than a mere scintilla,” and 

25 as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

26 conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (internal quotation marks 

27 omitted). This is “a very deferential standard of review . . . . [This] means once an ALJ finds 

28 facts, we can reject [them] only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise.” 

29 Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012) (emphasis in original) 

30 (internal quotation marks omitted).
 

3 

1 Guerra first argues that the ALJ erred in finding that her carpal tunnel syndrome, 

2 polycystic ovary disorder, and chronic diarrhea did not constitute “severe impairments.” A 

3 “severe impairment” is one that “significantly limits [the claimant’s] physical or mental ability 

4 to do basic work activities.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c); see also Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 U.S. 137, 

5 139 (1987). Guerra did not establish that any of these conditions was a severe impairment 

6 during the relevant period. The record suggests that Guerra did not show signs of carpal 

7 tunnel syndrome until after the ALJ rendered its decision. Guerra also testified that she 

8 regulated her polycystic ovary disorder and told one of her doctors that her diarrhea did not 

9 amount to a significant quality of life impairment. Admin. R. at 51, 487. Substantial 

10 evidence therefore supports the ALJ’s exclusion of carpal tunnel syndrome, polycystic ovary 

11 disorder, and chronic diarrhea from the list of Guerra’s claimed severe impairments. 

12 Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s determination of Guerra’s residual 

13 functional capacity (“RFC”). The ALJ concluded that Guerra “has the [RFC] to perform 

14 sedentary work,” and can “stand or walk for up to two hours total and sit for up to six hours 

total in an eight-hour workday.” Special App. at 8.1 15 The record reflects the opinions of 

16 multiple medical professionals that Guerra could sit for extended periods and ambulate 

17 normally, supporting the RFC determination. Although Guerra testified that her pain was 

18 too severe for her to work “at all,” an ALJ “may exercise discretion in weighing the 

19 credibility of the claimant’s testimony in light of the other evidence in the record.” Genier v. 

20 Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010). Not only did her treating professionals judge that she 

21 could sit for long periods, but Guerra herself acknowledged that she read, watched 

22 television, and cross-stitched daily, all activities requiring extensive sitting time. She also 

23 elected to pursue “conservative therapy” for her spinal conditions and, as late as March 

24 2012, only a few months before the end of the relevant period, her medical records reflected 

25 “no acute distress.” Admin. R. at 537, 542. Thus, the ALJ’s assessment of Guerra’s 

26 credibility regarding the severity of her symptoms is supported by substantial evidence. 

 

1 In conjunction with this determination, the ALJ imposed limitations on Guerra’s lifting weights over ten 

pounds, and on her exposure to respiratory irritants and vibrations in any relevant job. Special App. at 8. 
 

4 

1 The ALJ also did not err in finding that Guerra could perform her past work as an 

2 artist and in concluding, as a result, that she was not disabled. If a claimant has the RFC to 

3 perform her “past relevant work”—i.e., any gainful work that was done in the past fifteen 

4 years—then she will be found “not disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b). Here, Guerra was 

5 employed as an artist for school fundraisers within fifteen years of her ALJ hearing. In this 

6 capacity, she personalized products using paint pens; shipped items; and stuffed envelopes. 

7 This job required her to walk for one hour of the workday and sit for the remainder. She 

8 did not need to lift anything heavier than ten pounds. The exertional requirements of this 

9 job are compatible with the RFC determination. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in 

10 concluding that Guerra could resume her “past relevant work,” a conclusion that renders her 

11 “not disabled” under the Social Security regulations. In reaching this result, we acknowledge 

12 the validity of Guerra’s argument that, in assessing her credibility, the ALJ should, as we held 

13 in Rivera v. Schweiker, 717 F.2d 719, 725 (2d Cir. 1983), take into account a claimant’s long 

14 work record. We, nonetheless, conclude that on the facts of this case the ALJ’s holding can 

15 stand. 

16 Guerra also maintains that the Appeals Council and the District Court both erred by 

17 failing to consider new evidence, submitted after the ALJ rendered its decision. This 

18 evidence included medical records and a March 18, 2014 letter from the Department of 

19 Education approving, on the basis of her disability, Guerra’s application to discharge her 

20 loan. Most of the new medical records that Guerra submitted document her symptoms after

21 August 14, 2012, the ALJ decision date; they do not undermine the ALJ’s evaluation of 

22 Guerra’s condition during the relevant period. The other medical records were not “new” at 

23 all—they were already included in the record, and the ALJ considered them. Regarding the 

24 loan-discharge letter, Guerra fails to explain why the Department of Education’s 2014 

25 determination, made nineteen months after the ALJ decision, bears on her disability status as 

26 of August 14, 2012. “[I]f new and material evidence is submitted, the Appeals Council shall 

27 consider the additional evidence only where it relates to the period on or before the date of 

28 the administrative law judge hearing decision.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470(b); see Pollard v. Halter, 

29 377 F.3d 183, 193 (2d Cir. 2004) (noting that newly submitted evidence must be “relevant to 
 

5 

1 the claimant’s condition during the time period for which benefits were denied”). 

2 Accordingly, we discern no error in these evidentiary rulings. 

3 * * * 

4 We have considered Guerra’s remaining arguments and find them to be without 

5 merit. For the reasons set out above, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. 

6 

7 FOR THE COURT: 

8 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court