The Honorable Denny Chin, United Stat es Distri ct Judge for the Southe rn Distri ct of * New York, sitting by desi gnation. 09 -2 22 1- cv Comins v. As true 

### UNI TED ST ATES COURT OF APP EALS

FO R TH E SE C O N D C IRC U IT 

# AMENDED S UMM ARY ORDE R
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO N OT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SU MMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER INA DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS CO UR T, A PA RT Y MU ST C IT E EI TH ER T HE F ED ER

AL A PPE ND IX OR

A N EL EC TR ON IC D AT AB AS E (W ITH TH E NOTATION “SU MMARY ORD ER”). A PAR TY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENT ED BY COUNSEL.

At a st ate d te rm

of the Un ite d S tat es C ourt o f A pp eal s f or t he Se co nd

Ci rcu it, he ld at the Danie l P atr ick

Mo yn ihan Unit ed

St ate s C ourth ou se, 50 0 P ear l S tre et, in t he Ci ty o f N ew York, on the 15 day of April, two thousand te n. th PRESENT : PETER W . HALL,

DEBRAANN LIVING STON,

Ci rcu it J ud ges , DENNYCHIN,

District Judge
. *

__________________________________________ Be lva Co m ins , Plaintif

f-Appellant , v. 09 -22 21 -cv Michael J . Astrue, Comm issionerof Social Securit y,

De fen da nt- Ap pe lle e .

___________________________________________2

FOR APP ELLANT: H OW ARD D. O LI NS KY (Jaya A. Shurtli ff, on thebr ief ); Olinsky & Shurtliff, Syracuse, New York. FOR APP ELLEE: R OBERT S CHRI VER , Sp eci al A ssi stant Unit ed St ate s A tto rne y (And

ree a Le ch lei tne r, S pe cia l A ssi stant Unit ed St ate s A tto rne y, St ep he n P . C onte, Ac tin g C hie f C ouns el, Re gio n II , O ff ice of the Ge ne ral Co un sel , S oc ial Security Administrat ion, on thebr ief ), for An dre w T . B ax ter , Unit ed St ate s Attorney for the Nort hern Distri ct of New York. Ap pe al f rom a ju dg m ent of

the Un ite d S tat es D istric t C ourt f or t he No rth ern

Di str ict of Ne w York (Scullin, J. ). UPON DUE CONSIDERA TION IT IS HEREBYORDERED , ADJUDGED , AND DECRE ED that th e ju dg m ent of the dis tri ct c ourt b e AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellantappeals from the distri ct court’ s March 26, 2009 orde r adopting t he Report & Recomm endation of Magist rate Judge Lowe in i ts entir ety, ulti mately accepting the So cia l S ecu

rity C om m iss ion er’ s (the “C om

m iss ion er” ) de cis ion

an d d ism iss ingMs. Co m ins ’s complaint. W e assume the parties ’ familiarity with t he facts, procedur al history, and specificat ion of iss ue s o n a

pp eal
. W e re vie w the adm ini str ati ve rec ord as a wh ole to d ete rm ine wh eth er the re i s su bs tantia l
ev ide nc e to su

pp ort the Co mm iss ion er’ s d eci sio n and to e ns ure the co rre ct l eg al s tan dards we re applied bel ow. Burgess v. Astrue , 5 37 F. 3d 11 7, 12 8 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ). S ub stanti al e vid en ce i s m ore than a “mere scinti lla”; i nstead the r ecord must have “such rel evant evidenc e as a reas onable mind
m ight ac cep t as ad eq

uate t o s up po rt a

co nc lus ion .” Id. at 127 (int ernal quota tion marks omitted). This review focuses noton the distr ict courtopinion but on the administrative ruling. Moran v. Astrue , 5 69 F. 3d

10 8, 11 2 (2 d C ir. 20 09 ).3

Appellant ra ises thr ee objecti ons to ALJ Andrus’s rul ing, lateradopted by the Co mm iss ion er. W e ad dre ss t he m in o rde r. F irs t, M s. Co m ins ass ert s th at D r. V ila s P ati l w as h er tre ati ng ps yc hiatri st at th e O sw eg o H os pit al B eh av ior al S erv ice s D ivi sio n, an d th e A LJfa ile d to develop fully the r ecord by not re questing a functi on-by-function anal ysis from Dr. Patil regardi ng Ms. Co m ins ’s e m

plo ym ent li m itatio ns . Am edic al treatin g s ource —h ere , a ps yc hiatri st—

pro vid es the applic ant “with medical tr eatment or evaluati on and who has, or has had, an ongoi ng treatment rel ati on sh ip” wi th t

he ap pli cant. 2 0 C .F .R . § 40 4. 15 02 . T he rec ord ind icates that D r. P ati l
ex am ine d M s. Co m ins on ly o nc e, at h er d isc harge fr om Os we go Ho sp ita l, and

his ass ess m ent of

he r at t he tim e is inc lud ed

in t he rec ord . T he on ly o the r in dic ati on of Dr . P ati l’s co nn ect ion

wi th M s. Co m ins in t

he rec ord is h is s ign ature o n an e va luatio n o f M s. Co m ins , p erf orm ed byAl an W oodworth, which Dr. Patil signed as Woodworth’s supervis or. This spars e evidence does not demonstrate that Dr. Pat il had an “ongoi ng treatment rela tionship” wit h the applic ant. Id. Th ere
are num ero us ev alu ati on s f rom oth er s ource s who act

ua llydid tre at M s. Co m ins ’s m ed ica l sit uatio n, an d th e A LJdid

no t er r in no t re qu est inga sp eci fi c f un cti on -by -f

un cti on an aly sis fr om

Dr
. Patil. Appellant’s second, rela ted object ion to the adve rse decis ion concerns t he ALJ’s evaluat ion of Ms. Com ins’s pote ntial mental impairment through the spec ial tec hnique identi fied in 20 C.F.R. § 4 16 .9 20 a. Sh e as ser

ts that th e A LJdid

no t pr op erl y ana lyz e th e ap pli cab le f act ors as t he y a pp lie d to her. The speci al techni que require s evaluati on of four areas of potential functional li mitation: “[a]ctivities of daily living; social functi oning; concent ration, per sistence , or pace; and e pisodes of decompensation.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.920a(c)(3). I n our decisi on in Kohler v. Astrue , w e d ete rm ine d the ALJ did not eval uate any of the four requi red areas with the neces sary speci ficity to al low for4

“[ e] ff ect ive rev iewbythi s C ourt. ” 5 46 F. 3d 26 0, 26 7 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ). H ere , h ow ev er, the AL J’s decision spe cifically e xpounded upon each of the four functional a reas of the speci al techni que. Bolstered by eva luations from a variety of medical personne l who evaluated M s. Com ins, he
car ef ull y la id o ut t

he lim itatio ns Ms. Co m ins wo uld be expe cte d to have in e ach are a. Th is ob jec tio n, the ref

ore , is wi tho ut m eri t. The third obje ction invol ves the tes timony of the vocational exper t, which Ms. Comins argues was improperly el icited by t he ALJ’s hypotheti cal questi ons. We f ind no issue wit h the hy po the tic als po sed

byAL J And

rus be cau se t

he y a pp rop riatel y s ou ght to pro be variatio ns of Ms. Com ins’s abi lity to work. After reviewing the issues on appea l and the not i nsubstanti al recor d of all the proce edings below, we affirm

for substantia lly the r easons art iculate d by the distr ict courtin its or der and opinion. Ac co rdi ng ly, the jud gm ent of the dis tri ct c ourt i s AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT : Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk