Here, the ALJ's analysis “provided an adequate basis for meaningful judicial review,” satisfying the ALJ's obligations under SSR 96-8p. See Frazier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-CV-4320 (AJP), 2017 WL 1422465, at *15 n.29 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2017) (rejecting the argument that an ALJ failed to provide a “narrative discussion explaining the evidentiary basis for the RFC” where three pages of narrative discussion followed the RFC determination).
that “‘HALLEX is simply a set of internal guidelines for the SSA, not regulations promulgated by the Commissioner,' and therefore . . . a failure to follow HALLEX does not necessarily constitute legal error.'” Frazier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 16 Civ. 4320 (AJP), 2017 WL 1422465, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2017) (quoting Gallo v. Colvin, 15 Civ. 9302 (AT/BCM), 2016 WL 7744444, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2016)). In Tran v. Colvin, the Court adopted a Report and Recommendation
(Id.) See Frazier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 16 Civ. 4320 (AJP), 2017 WL 1422465, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2017) (holding that substantial evidence supported ALJ's finding that claimant with vertigo was able to work with restriction “against jobs involving heights, exposed moving machinery or driving”).
(R. 16-21). “This discussion provided an adequate basis for meaningful judicial review, and was therefore sufficient to meet ALJ [Begley]'s obligations under SSR 96-8p.” Frazier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 16 Civ. 4320 (AJP), 2017 WL 1422465, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2017) (rejecting argument that ALJ failed to provide a e a “narrative discussion explaining the evidentiary basis for the RFC” where the RFC determination was followed by three pages of narrative discussion); see Cichocki, 729 F.3d at 177; Evans v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 110 F.Supp.3d 518, 540-41 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
; Diaz v. Berryhill, No. 3:17-CV-00735 (JCH), 2018 WL 4462366, at *9 (D. Conn. Sept. 18, 2018) (Court found that Plaintiff's objections to the vocational experts qualifications and methodology lacked merit where he used SkillTRAN and Job Browser Pro software.); Frazier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 16 CIV. 4320 (AJP), 2017 WL 1422465, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2017) (Plaintiff argued that the testimony of vocational expert as to the No. of jobs existing in the national economy was not reliable and not supported by substantial evidence.
The ALJ was not required to make a finding that Petitioner had no RFC merely because neither of the consulting sources on which she relied stated a legal conclusion about Petitioner's RFC on the record. See Frazier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2017 WL 1422465, at *13 n.26 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2017) (“[Plaintiff's] assertion that ‘no source indicated an opinion that [she] could be on her feet for two-third's or more of an eight hour workday' is at least implied contradicted by [consultative examiner's] assessment that [plaintiff] had a mild restriction for prolonged sitting'; he listed no restriction on prolonged standing”); Heitz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 201 F.Supp.3d 413, 425
The AAJ therefore did not breach his duty to develop the record and was not required to order a new consultative examination. See Raymonda C. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:19-CV-0178, 2020 WL 42814, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2020) ("Plaintiff has failed . . . to point to any persuasive way in which the record was so deficient that the ALJ could not have made a decision related to the post-surgery period without a new consultative examination.") (citing Cox v. Astrue, 993 F. Supp. 2d 169, 177 (N.D.N.Y. 2012)); see also Frazier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 16 Civ. 4320, 2017 WL 1422465, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2017) (plaintiff did not cite to any "intervening medical evidence in the record calling into question the relevance" of the consultative examiner's observations or opinions; the ALJ was entitled to weigh it like any other medical opinion evidence). B. Lay Opinion
Consultative examinations do not have expiration dates. See id.; Frazier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 16 Civ. 4320 (AJP), 2017 WL 1422465, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2017). "The . . . passage of time does not render an opinion stale[;] [i]nstead, a medical opinion may be stale if subsequent treatment notes indicate a claimant's condition has deteriorated."
When an ALJ determines that a claimant's own statements regarding her symptoms are not supported by the record, that "decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual's symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual's symptoms."Frazier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2017 WL 1422465, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2017) (quoting SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 at *9 (Mar. 16, 2016)). The ALJ recognized this obligation under SSR 16-3p and identified the seven relevant considerations.
Even though the ALJ did not specifically include a supervisor restriction in the hypothetical presented to the VE, case law reflects that each of these jobs requires only occasional interaction with supervisors. See Frazier v. Commissioner of Social Security, 16 Civ. 4320, 2017 WL 1422465 (S.D.N.Y. April 21, 2017) (VE testified that an individual who could only perform "jobs involving simple, routine, repetitive style tasks, and involving only occasional contact with supervisors, coworkers and the public" could perform the duties of a kitchen helper); Piatt v. Colvin, 80 F. Supp. 3d 480 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (noting that the VE testified that someone limited to "occasional contact with supervisors, co-workers and the public" could perform the occupation of machine feeder); Millidge v. Colvin, 12-CV-0288, 2014 WL 4057356 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2014) (VE testified that an individual who was limited to "jobs involving simple instructions, not dealing with the public, and only occasionally dealing with supervisors and coworkers" could perform the job of laundry worker). In sum, because the record does not support a finding that plaintiff was seriously limited in his ability to interact with supervisors and because the jobs cited by the VE involve only occasional interaction with supervisors, the ALJ's fail