Desnerck v. Berryhill

3 Citing cases

  1. John C. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    No. 20-CV-00876-MJR (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2021)

    -suggest that Plaintiffs condition worsened in the period after Dr. Noia examined him. For this reason alone, Dr. Noia's opinion was stale by the time the ALJ relied on it to calculate Plaintiffs RFC."); Desnerckv. Bern/hill, No. 1:15-CV-0465-MAT, 2018 WL 300109, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2018) (remanding where opinion evidence was rendered prior to plaintiffs hospitalizations and subsequent psychiatric treatment); Daws v. Berryhill, No. 16-CV-6815, 2018 WL 1250019, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2018) (determining that the opinions of two consultative examiners were stale because "significant developments in Plaintiffs medical history had occurred since" the opinions were issued, including hospitalizations, hallucinations, and suicidal ideation); Crawley v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-CV-00271 (MAT), 2018 WL 2354984, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. May 24, 2018) ("Here, the state agency reviewing physicians rendered their opinion prior to Plaintiffs suicide attempt and inpatient psychiatric treatment and therefore could not have factored this evidence of a deterioration in Plaintiffs mental health into their conclusions. These opinions therefore cannot constitute substantial evidence in support of the ALJ's c

  2. Lorenzi v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    17CV1273 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2019)

    II. Stale State Medication Opinion A stale medical opinion cannot be relied upon if it was also either incomplete at the outset or the subsequent record showed deterioration in the claimant's condition not reflected in the now stale opinions, see Desnerck v. Berryhill, No. 15CV465, 2018 WL 3001009, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2018) (Telesca, J.); Jones v. Comm'r, No. 10CV5831(RJD), 2012 WL 3637480, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2012). The ALJ gave great weight [R. 18] to Dr. Santarpia's December 2013 evaluation [R. 591] which noted plaintiff's reporting some short-term memory deficits and concentration difficulties [R. 592] and found her recent and remote memory skills were intact [R. 593]. Dr. Santarpia opined that plaintiff was able to maintain attention and concentration, learn new tasks [R. 593]. Plaintiff contends that this opinion was stale and predates her March and December 2014 MRIs showing TIA (Docket No. 13, Pl. Memo. at 16-17).

  3. Roscoe v. Berryhill

    17-CV-6502P (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2018)   Cited 7 times

    Whether the record in this case - which appears to include the entirety of Roscoe's limited mental health treatment records for the relevant period - provides sufficient information for the ALJ to render a common-sense RFC determination in the absence of a medical opinion assessing her mental work-related limitations is a close question. Compare Desnerck v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 300109, *3 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) ("[t]he record does not contain any medical opinion evidence regarding the impact of plaintiff's mental impairments on his ability to function, and there is no indication that the ALJ sought to remedy this obvious gap in the record . . . [;] the ALJ failed to obtain a consultative psychiatric examination of plaintiff, even though plaintiff's treating physician had expressly opined that a psychiatric evaluation was necessary one month before the administrative hearing[;] [u]nder these circumstances, the [c]ourt concludes that the ALJ failed to discharge his duty to develop the record regarding the severity of plaintiff's mental impairments, and that remand for further proceedings is necessary"); Morales v. Colvin, 2017 WL 462626, *2 (D. Conn. 2017) ("[t]he ALJ does not identify any opinion evidence addressing [p]laintiff's functional limitations based on her conditions in combination[;] [w]hile the record is replete with treatment notes, these notes do not (nor would one expect they sh