Czuba v. Astrue

2 Citing cases

  1. Hamm v. Saul

    No. 18-CV-6198-MJR (W.D.N.Y. May. 22, 2020)

    The ALJ was required to consider the combined effect of Hamm's physical and mental impairments, with an understanding that her physical impairments could have a significant effect on her mental functioning. See Catoe v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 483319, *6 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2019) (remanding for consideration of whether the plaintiff's "impairments, alone or in combination with his physical impairments, affect his ability to engage in substantial gainful activity"); Urena-Perez v. Astrue, 2009 WL 1726217, *27 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2009), report and recommendation adopted as modified, 2009 WL 1726212 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2009) (remanding where the ALJ "failed to assess the combined effects of the plaintiff's acknowledged physical and psychiatric conditions"); Czuba v. Astrue, 2008 WL 2781546, *3 (W.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008) (remanding where "the ALJ committed error by failing to consider such mental conditions in combination with plaintiff's physical limitations in evaluating her residual functional capacity"); Bentley v. Apfel, 106 F. Supp. 2d 371, 385 (D. Conn. 2000) (remanding and noting that "if the ALJ finds that a psychological impairment exists, then the ALJ must consider the combined effect of plaintiff's physical and psychological impairments"; "The Regulations require the ALJ to consider all of a claimant's impairments together 'without regard to whether any such impairment, if considered separately, would be of sufficient severity' to be disabling.") (citing 20 C.F.R. ยง 404.1523). Moreover, there is no indication that even if Hamm's mental impairments were somehow "situational," they were not functionally disabling as outlined by Dr. Deutsch in her opinions.

  2. Rosario v. Colvin

    No. 1:14-CV-00191 (MAT) (W.D.N.Y. May. 4, 2016)   Cited 4 times

    On remand, the ALJ is directed to consider all of the limitations found by Dr. Dave in determining plaintiff's RFC. Once plaintiff's RFC is determined, a vocational expert should be consulted to "reconsider whether or not, given plaintiff's limitations, [he] is capable of performing work which exists in the national economy." Czuba v. Astrue, 2008 WL 2781546, *4 (W.D.N.Y. July 14, 2008). V. Conclusion