21

- 3152 Valdes

- Ocasio v. Kijakazi



## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT


# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY 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 IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NO TATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ” ). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of 2 New York, on the 2 2 n d d a y of M a y , two thousand twenty

- three

. 3 4 PRESENT: 5 GUIDO CALABRES I , 6 MICHAEL H. PARK , 7 STEVEN J. MENASHI , 8 Circuit Judges. 9

_____________________________________ 10 11 Maite Valdes

- Ocasio , 12 13 Plaintiff

- Appellant, 14 15

v. 16 17 Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner 21

- 3152 18 of Social Security , 19 Defendant

- Appellee

. 20

_____________________________________ 21 22 FOR PLAINTIFF

- APPELLANT : P ETER A. G OR T ON , Lachman & Gorton
, 23 Endicott
, NY

. 24 25 FOR DEFENDANT

- APPELL EE : M OLLY E. C ARTER , Special Assistant United 26 States Attorney (Michael J. Pelgro, Regional 27 Chief Counsel, Social Security 28 Administration, on the brief ), Boston, MA, 29 for Carla B. Freedman, United States 30 Attorney for the Northern District of New 31 York
, New York , NY

. 322 Appeal fro m a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of 1
New York ( Stewart
, M. J

. ). 2

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 3

DECREED that the judgment of the district court i s AFFIRMED

. 4

Maite Valdes

- Ocasio appeals th e denial by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) of her 5

claim for Disability Insurance under Title II and Supplemental Security Income benefits under 6

Title XVI of the Social Security Act
, 42 U.S.C. § § 401

- 434

. Valdes

- Ocasio applied for benefits 7
based on her depression, panic attacks, and anxiety

. The ALJ determined that Valdes

- Ocasio had 8

“ the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with 9
the following nonexertional limitations: the claim ant is limited to understanding, remembering, 10
and carrying out simple instructions, involving routine and repetitive tasks; with no high 11
production demands; and no more than occasional contact with the public. ” Certified Admin

. R

. 12
(“CAR”) at 20. Valdes

- O casio primarily argues on appeal that the ALJ’s residual functional 13
capacity (“RFC”) assessment is not supported by substantial evidence. She also argues that the 14

ALJ erred by giving substantial weight to Dr. Harding’s expert opinion and only moderate wei ght 15
to Dr. Slowik’s opinion. We assume the parties ’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 16
procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 17
“We conduct a plenary review of the administrative record to determine if there is 18

substantial evidenc e, considering the record as a whole, to support the Commissioner’s decision 19
and if the correct legal standards have been applied.” Schillo v. Kijakazi , 31 F.4th 64, 74 (2d Cir. 20
2022) (cleaned up) ; see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“ The findings of the Commissioner of Social 213 Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive .”)

. Substantial 1

evidence is “ such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 2

conclusion .” Ruck er v. Kijakazi , 48 F.4 th 86, 91 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Burgess v. Astrue , 537 3
F.3d 117, 127 (2d Cir. 2008)). “ If evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, 4
the Commissioner’s conclusion must be upheld. ” Schillo , 31 F.4 th at 74 (cl eaned up). 5

I. The Residual Functional Capacity Assessment 6

Valdes

- Ocasio argues that the ALJ’s RFC assessment “ fail[ed] to include any limitations 7
to staying on task and/or attendance despite undisputed medical opinions assessing such 8
limitations.” Appe llant’s Br. at 14 (typeface altered)

. But t he medical record supports the 9
ALJ’s findings. Dr. Harding, the state

- agency consultative examiner, concluded that Valdes

10
Ocasio was “capable of performing unskilled work in a low contact setting due to reported 11
difficulties interacting with others.” CAR at 6 9

. The ALJ concluded that due “to moderate 12
limitations in concentrating, persisting
, or maintaining pace, [Valdes

- Ocasio] can have no high 13
production demands.” Id. at 22. The ALJ found , however, that “greater restrictions are not 14
supported by the evidence of record.” Id. 15
Dr. Harding indicated that Valdes

- Ocasio was “moderately limited” in her ability to “carry 16
out detailed instructions,” “maintain attention and concentration for extended periods,” and 17
“perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular attendance, and be punctual within 18
customary tolerances.” See id. at 68. Nothing from Dr. Harding’s report required the ALJ to 19

include more detailed limitations in the RFC assessment. See Schillo , 31 F.4 th at 78 (“[A n ] ALJ’s 20
RFC conclusion need not perfectly match any single medical opinion in the record, so long as it is 21
supported by substantial evidence.” )

. The same goes for Dr. Slowik’s opinion. Dr. Slowik 224 found Valdes

- Ocasio’s “ability to understand, remember or apply complex directions and 1

instructions, sustain c oncentration, sustain an ordinary routine, and regulate emotions ” to be 2

“ moderate to markedly limited. ” CAR at 42 8

. “ A n ALJ does not have to state on the record 3
every reason justifying a decision” and a “failure to cite specific evidence does not indicat e that 4

such evidence was not considered.” Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r , 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d 5
Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). 6

II. Weighing of Expert Opinions 7

Valdes

- Ocasio argues that the ALJ erred by “rely[ing] on the opinion of the non

- examining 8
state agency psychologist [Dr. Harding] over the opinion of Dr. Slowik who actually examined 9
[her].” Appellant’s Br. at 13

. Valdes

- Ocasio ask s this Court to reweigh the medical opinions 10

under the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors
, b ut the ALJ was entitled to “weigh the conflicting 11
evidence in the record,” including resolving any inconsistencies between Dr. Harding’s and Dr. 12

Slowik’s assessments. Schaal v. Apfel , 134 F.3d 496, 504 (2d Cir. 1998) ; see Veino v. B arnhart
, 13
312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002) ( “Genuine conflicts in the medical evidence are for the 14

Commissioner to resolve.” )

. 15
In any case, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to give “substantial weight” 16
to Dr. Harding’s opinion and “moderate weight” to Dr. Slowik’s opinion. See CAR at 2 3

. The 17
ALJ concluded that Dr. Harding “has program knowledge and provided a det ailed supporting 18

rationale for his conclusions.” Id. The ALJ noted that Dr. Harding’s “opinion is also generally 19
consistent with contemporaneous treatment notes that showed the claimant’s symptoms were 20

stable on medications.” Id. 215 The ALJ properly gave weight to Dr. Harding’s opinion as the state

- agency consultative 1

examiner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6) (“[T] he amount of understanding of our disability 2

programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has

. . . and the extent to whic h 3

a medical source is familiar with the other information in your case record are relevant factors that 4

we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion .”) ; id. § 404.1513a(b)(1) 5
(“State agency medical or psychological consultants are h ighly qualified and experts in Social 6
Security disability evaluation.”)

. Dr. Harding’s findings are generally consistent with the 7
longitudinal evidence that Valdes

- Ocasio’s symptoms were stable on medication. 8

The ALJ ’s decision to give only moderate weight to Dr. Slowik’s opinion was also proper

. 9
The ALJ found it was “generally consistent with the contemporaneous treatment notes” and 10

credited the “in

- person evaluation.” CAR at 23. But the ALJ found Dr. Slowik’s opi nion “vague 11

as to [Valdes

- Ocasio’s] specific limitations

. ” Id. “The ALJ was entitled to conclude that [the 12
doctor’s] statements were too vague

. . . and that [the doctor’s] opinion was therefore entitled to 13
only limited weight.” Schillo , 31 F.4th at 76. In sum, the ALJ’s RFC finding and its weighing 14
of expert opinions are supported by substantial evidence. 15

We have considered all of Valdes

- Ocasio’s remaining arguments and find them to be 16

without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the di strict court is AFFIRMED

. 17

FOR THE COURT: 18 Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 19