Court Opinion

ID: 9396392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 15:00:36.851333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.705144
License: Public Domain

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 NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1                 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
 2   held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 3   New York, on the 22nd day of May, two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5   PRESENT:
 6               GUIDO CALABRESI,
 7               MICHAEL H. PARK,
 8               STEVEN J. MENASHI,
 9                     Circuit Judges.
10   _____________________________________
11
12   Maite Valdes-Ocasio,
13
14                               Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16                      v.
17
18   Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner                                   21-3152
19   of Social Security,
20                        Defendant-Appellee.
21   _____________________________________
22
23   FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT:                           PETER A. GORTON, Lachman & Gorton,
24                                                      Endicott, NY.
25
26   FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE:                            MOLLY E. CARTER, Special Assistant United
27                                                      States Attorney (Michael J. Pelgro, Regional
28                                                      Chief Counsel, Social Security
29                                                      Administration, on the brief), Boston, MA,
30                                                      for Carla B. Freedman, United States
31                                                      Attorney for the Northern District of New
32                                                      York, New York, NY.
 1          Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of

 2   New York (Stewart, M.J.).

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

 4   DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 5          Maite Valdes-Ocasio appeals the denial by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) of her

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

 7   Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434.       Valdes-Ocasio applied for benefits

 8   based on her depression, panic attacks, and anxiety.     The ALJ determined that Valdes-Ocasio had

 9   “the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with

10   the following nonexertional limitations: the claimant is limited to understanding, remembering,

11   and carrying out simple instructions, involving routine and repetitive tasks; with no high

12   production demands; and no more than occasional contact with the public.”        Certified Admin. R.

13   (“CAR”) at 20.    Valdes-Ocasio primarily argues on appeal that the ALJ’s residual functional

14   capacity (“RFC”) assessment is not supported by substantial evidence. She also argues that the

15   ALJ erred by giving substantial weight to Dr. Harding’s expert opinion and only moderate weight

16   to Dr. Slowik’s opinion.     We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the

17   procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

18          “We conduct a plenary review of the administrative record to determine if there is

19   substantial evidence, considering the record as a whole, to support the Commissioner’s decision

20   and if the correct legal standards have been applied.”    Schillo v. Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64, 74 (2d Cir.

21   2022) (cleaned up); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the Commissioner of Social

                                                      2
 1   Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive.”). Substantial

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

 3   conclusion.” Rucker v. Kijakazi, 48 F.4th 86, 91 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Burgess v. Astrue, 537

 4   F.3d 117, 127 (2d Cir. 2008)). “If evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation,

 5   the Commissioner’s conclusion must be upheld.” Schillo, 31 F.4th at 74 (cleaned up).

 6   I.     The Residual Functional Capacity Assessment

 7          Valdes-Ocasio argues that the ALJ’s RFC assessment “fail[ed] to include any limitations

 8   to staying on task and/or attendance despite undisputed medical opinions assessing such

 9   limitations.”   Appellant’s Br. at 14 (typeface altered).     But the medical record supports the

10   ALJ’s findings.    Dr. Harding, the state-agency consultative examiner, concluded that Valdes-

11   Ocasio was “capable of performing unskilled work in a low contact setting due to reported

12   difficulties interacting with others.”     CAR at 69.    The ALJ concluded that due “to moderate

13   limitations in concentrating, persisting, or maintaining pace, [Valdes-Ocasio] can have no high

14   production demands.” Id. at 22.          The ALJ found, however, that “greater restrictions are not

15   supported by the evidence of record.”       Id.

16          Dr. Harding indicated that Valdes-Ocasio was “moderately limited” in her ability to “carry

17   out detailed instructions,” “maintain attention and concentration for extended periods,” and

18   “perform activities within a schedule, maintain regular attendance, and be punctual within

19   customary tolerances.” See id. at 68.        Nothing from Dr. Harding’s report required the ALJ to

20   include more detailed limitations in the RFC assessment. See Schillo, 31 F.4th at 78 (“[An] ALJ’s

21   RFC conclusion need not perfectly match any single medical opinion in the record, so long as it is

22   supported by substantial evidence.”).       The same goes for Dr. Slowik’s opinion.     Dr. Slowik

                                                        3
1    found Valdes-Ocasio’s “ability to understand, remember or apply complex directions and

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

3    “moderate to markedly limited.” CAR at 428.         “An ALJ does not have to state on the record

4    every reason justifying a decision” and a “failure to cite specific evidence does not indicate that

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

6    Cir. 2012) (cleaned up).

7    II.    Weighing of Expert Opinions

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

9    state agency psychologist [Dr. Harding] over the opinion of Dr. Slowik who actually examined

10   [her].” Appellant’s Br. at 13. Valdes-Ocasio asks this Court to reweigh the medical opinions

11   under the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors, but the ALJ was entitled to “weigh the conflicting

12   evidence in the record,” including resolving any inconsistencies between Dr. Harding’s and Dr.

13   Slowik’s assessments. Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 504 (2d Cir. 1998); see Veino v. Barnhart,

14   312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Genuine conflicts in the medical evidence are for the

15   Commissioner to resolve.”).

16          In any case, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to give “substantial weight”

17   to Dr. Harding’s opinion and “moderate weight” to Dr. Slowik’s opinion. See CAR at 23. The

18   ALJ concluded that Dr. Harding “has program knowledge and provided a detailed supporting

19   rationale for his conclusions.” Id. The ALJ noted that Dr. Harding’s “opinion is also generally

20   consistent with contemporaneous treatment notes that showed the claimant’s symptoms were

21   stable on medications.” Id.

                                                     4
 1          The ALJ properly gave weight to Dr. Harding’s opinion as the state-agency consultative

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

 3   programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has . . . and the extent to which

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

 5   we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.”); id. § 404.1513a(b)(1)

 6   (“State agency medical or psychological consultants are highly qualified and experts in Social

 7   Security disability evaluation.”).    Dr. Harding’s findings are generally consistent with the

 8   longitudinal evidence that Valdes-Ocasio’s symptoms were stable on medication.

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

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

11   credited the “in-person evaluation.” CAR at 23. But the ALJ found Dr. Slowik’s opinion “vague

12   as to [Valdes-Ocasio’s] specific limitations.” Id. “The ALJ was entitled to conclude that [the

13   doctor’s] statements were too vague . . . and that [the doctor’s] opinion was therefore entitled to

14   only limited weight.” Schillo, 31 F.4th at 76. In sum, the ALJ’s RFC finding and its weighing

15   of expert opinions are supported by substantial evidence.

16          We have considered all of Valdes-Ocasio’s remaining arguments and find them to be

17   without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

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

                                                      5