Opinion
14-980
02-06-2015
TIMOTHY M. SIZER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
FOR APPELLANT: JUSTIN GOLDSTEIN, Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller, PLLC, Amherst, NY. FOR APPELLEE: JOSHUA L. KERSHNER, Special Assistant United States Attorney (Stephen P. Conte, Regional Chief Counsel, Region II, Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration, on the brief), for William J. Hochul, Jr., United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY.
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 6th day of February, two thousand and fifteen. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. FOR APPELLANT: JUSTIN GOLDSTEIN, Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller, PLLC, Amherst, NY. FOR APPELLEE: JOSHUA L. KERSHNER, Special Assistant United States Attorney (Stephen P. Conte, Regional Chief Counsel, Region II, Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration, on the brief), for William J. Hochul, Jr., United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Timothy Sizer ("Appellant") appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, affirming the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for social security benefits. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
Appellant principally challenges the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") residual functional capacity ("RFC") determination that Appellant was capable of performing sedentary work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a), with additional, enumerated limitations. This determination was based on the medical opinion evidence, the objective medical evidence, and Appellant's testimony at the ALJ hearing. The ALJ properly accorded "little weight" to the non-specialist medical opinion of Appellant's treating physician because it was inconsistent with "other substantial evidence in the case record" and, therefore, undeserving of "controlling weight." See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(c)(2); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam). The Commissioner's decision applied the appropriate legal standards and is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
In reviewing a denial of social security benefits, we conduct "a plenary review of 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." Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). Genuine conflicts in the medical evidence are for the Commissioner to resolve. See Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008).
We have considered all of Appellant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk