Court Opinion

ID: 9906555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 16:00:41.272967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:13.157233
License: Public Domain

23-453-cv
Simmons 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 NOTATION “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,
held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
City of New York, on the 4th day of December, two thousand twenty-three.

        PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
                         RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
                         EUNICE C. LEE,
                                 Circuit Judges.
        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        JESSICA SIMMONS,

                        Plaintiff-Appellant,

                  v.                                                         No. 23-453-cv

        KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING
        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
        SECURITY,

                         Defendant-Appellee.
        ------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                     1
      FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:                       MARK A. SCHNEIDER, Law
                                                     Office of Mark A. Schneider,
                                                     Plattsburgh, NY

      FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:                        SHANNON FISHEL, Special
                                                     Assistant United States
                                                     Attorney (Ellen E. Sovern,
                                                     Associate General Counsel—
                                                     Division 2, Office of the
                                                     General Counsel, Social
                                                     Security Administration,
                                                     Baltimore, MD, on the brief), for
                                                     Carla B. Freedman, United
                                                     States Attorney for the
                                                     Northern District of New York,
                                                     Syracuse, NY

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

Northern District of New York (Thérèse Wiley Dancks, Magistrate Judge).

      UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

      Plaintiff-Appellant Jessica Simmons appeals from a judgment of the

United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Dancks, M.J.)

that affirmed the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security denying

her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social

Security Act (SSA), 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq. On appeal, Simmons principally

challenges the determination of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that she was

                                          2
not disabled within the meaning of the SSA. We assume the parties’ familiarity

with the underlying facts and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer

only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

      “On an appeal from the denial of disability benefits, we focus on the

administrative ruling rather than the district court’s opinion.” Estrella v.

Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019) (quotation marks omitted). We review the

administrative record “to determine if there is substantial evidence, considering

the record as a whole, to support the Commissioner’s decision and if the correct

legal standards have been applied.” Sczepanski v. Saul, 946 F.3d 152, 157 (2d Cir.

2020) (quotation marks omitted); see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). Under

the substantial evidence standard, “once an ALJ finds facts, we can reject those

facts only if a reasonable factfinder would have to conclude otherwise.” Brault v.

Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r, 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation marks

omitted).

      Simmons first argues that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the opinions

and findings of her treating medical sources. In particular, she claims that the

ALJ failed to consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(3) and (c)(4)

— namely, the medical source’s relationship with the claimant and the

                                          3
specialization of the medical source — and also failed to accord controlling

weight to the medical opinions and findings of James Vanness, a physician

assistant who treated her for mental health. We see no error.

      First, the applicable regulations only require an explanation as to how the

ALJ “considered the supportability and consistency factors for a medical source’s

medical opinions,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2), as the ALJ here did, see Special

App’x 15. “The factors of supportability (paragraph (c)(1) of [§ 404.1520c]) and

consistency (paragraph (c)(2) of [§ 404.1520c]) are the most important factors” the

agency “consider[s] when [it] determine[s] how persuasive [it] find[s] a medical

source’s medical opinions . . . to be.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2). An explanation

is thus not required as to how the ALJ considered the remaining factors “in

paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(5).” Id.

      Second, contrary to Simmons’s argument, the ALJ was also not required to

“defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to

any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including

those from [the claimant’s] medical sources.” Id. § 404.1520c(a). The ALJ was

entitled instead to “weigh the conflicting evidence in the record,” including

resolving any inconsistencies in Vanness’s opinions and findings. Schaal v. Apfel,

                                         4
134 F.3d 496, 504 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d

Cir. 2002) (“Genuine conflicts in the medical evidence are for the Commissioner

to resolve.”). Here, the ALJ noted that “[t]he portion of his opinion in which

[Vanness] finds marked restrictions is not consistent with his own records” and

thus unpersuasive. Special App’x 15. For example, Vanness found that

Simmons had marked limitations in applying information and maintaining pace

in his report of March 2020, which covers the period from November 2018 to the

date of the report. However, in a prior report dated February 2019, which covers

an overlapping period from November 2018 to the date of that report, Vanness

stated that Simmons had no limitation in any of the functional categories,

including in applying information or in maintaining pace. It may be possible

that Simmons’s condition changed during the non-overlapping period of the two

reports (i.e., between February 2019 and March 2020), but this conclusion is

undermined by his own treatment notes leading up to the March 2020 report.

Specifically, in his notes dated September 23, 2019 (approximately six months

before the March 2020 report), Vanness noted that Simmons “reports doing

better now than in years.” Similarly, in his notes dated November 8, 2019

(approximately four months before the March 2020 report), Vanness described

                                           5
Simmons’s behavior as “stable and uneventful,” with “no apparent serious

mental status abnormalities.” And in his notes dated February 4, 2020

(approximately one month before the March 2020 report), Vanness reported

Simmons’s mental condition as “stable” and having “no gross abnormalities.”

Given this context, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that

Vanness’s medical opinion was “inconsistent and . . . unpersuasive.” Special

App’x 15.

      Simmons next contends that her medical records, together with the

medical opinions of both Vanness and Dr. Brett Hartman, the agency’s

consultative examiner, demonstrate that she is per se mentally disabled. 1 To

show a per se mental disability, Simmons must establish an extreme limitation of

one, or marked limitation of two, of the following domains of mental

functioning: (1) understanding, remembering, or applying information; (2)

interacting with others; (3) concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace; or (4)

adapting or managing oneself. 20 C.F.R. § 404, Subpt. P, App’x 1, Listings

12.04(B), 12.06(B). Here, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion

1We agree with the Magistrate Judge that Simmons has forfeited the argument
that her mental condition meets Listing 12.15 for post-traumatic stress disorder.
See Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 306 (2d Cir. 2009).
                                         6
that Simmons did not meet any of these listing requirements. For example, the

agency’s medical examiners described Simmons’s limitation in each of the four

categories as only “mild” or “moderate” rather than “extreme” or “marked.”

Simmons’s statements and actions during her medical examinations regarding

her conditions likewise support the ALJ’s finding that Simmons did not satisfy

the listing requirements for a per se mental disability. See Special App’x 9–10

(noting, among other things, that Simmons reported that she has several good

friends and gets along with family members; can dress, bathe, and groom herself;

and can cook, clean, and do laundry).

      Lastly, Simmons maintains that the ALJ erred in determining that she has

the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform light work with some

additional limitations. Again, we disagree. An “ALJ bears the final

responsibility for making RFC determinations,” and therefore an “ALJ’s RFC

conclusion need not perfectly match any single medical opinion in the record, so

long as it is supported by substantial evidence.” Schillo v. Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64, 78

(2d Cir. 2022) (quotation marks omitted). Here, the ALJ’s RFC determination

was supported by substantial evidence. The results of Simmons’s medical

examinations showed, among other things, that her memory, attention, motor

                                          7
strength, gait, and reflexes were normal. These results were corroborated by the

opinions of various doctors and the agency’s medical examiners. See Certified

Admin. Rec. 92, 104–05. Accordingly, we agree with the Magistrate Judge that

substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that Simmons has the RFC to

perform light work with the additional limitations specified by the ALJ.

      We have considered Simmons’s remaining arguments and conclude that

they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District

Court is AFFIRMED.

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

                                        8