Douglas v. Berryhill

4 Citing cases

  1. Pope v. Kijakazi

    22 Civ. 00274 (JCM) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2023)

    Id.; see also Brown v. Colvin, 73 F.Supp.3d 193, 200 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (remand not required where ALJ did not provide function-by-function analysis “[b]ecause the Commissioner's decision denying [the plaintiff] disability benefits is supported by substantial evidence, and because that decision included a thorough analysis of the evidence of [the plaintiffs] physical and mental limitations”); Douglas v. Berryhill, 17-CV-00694 (JMA), 2019 WL 1017341, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2019) (“Remand is unnecessary because the ALJ's RFC analysis affords an adequate basis for judicial review and is supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ summarized the evidence in the record that reveals the nature and extent of Plaintiff's physical limitations and work capacity, including medical assessments from examining and nonexamining medical experts and Plaintiff's subjective complaints[.]”). Cf. Murphy v. Barnhart, No. 00 Civ. 9621 (JSR) (FM), 2003 WL 470572, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2003) (remand appropriate where “the ALJ gave no indication that he considered [the plaintiffs] limited ability to manipulate”) (emphasis added)

  2. Edward J. v. Kijakazi

    5:21-CV-150 (DJS) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2022)   Cited 8 times

    The ALJ thoroughly discussed the medical records and opinions in the record upon which he relied to assess Plaintiff's RFC. The weight given to the various opinions and the import for the ALJ's RFC finding is clear on the record and the analysis does not require remand for further explanation. See, e.g., Negron v. Saul, 2021 WL 465768, at *24 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 1254426 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2021); Douglas v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 1017341, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2019).

  3. Negron v. Saul

    19 Civ. 07547 (KMK)(JCM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2021)   Cited 12 times

    The Court finds that this inconsistency with the rest of the record was an acceptable reason for declining to adopt some of Dr. Archbald's conclusions, and the ALJ sufficiently explained this rationale. See Jackson, 2018 WL 3306193, at *7; see also Douglas v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-00694 (JMA), 2019 WL 1017341, at *5-6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2019) (finding ALJ's explanation of RFC determination sufficient where "weight given to . . . medical opinions alongside the other medical evidence in the record ma[de] apparent why the ALJ did not fully credit all of the limitations in [one] opinion"); (R. 28-29). This is not a situation where it is impossible to "glean from [the ALJ's] opinion[] why he did not adopt [Dr. Archbald's] more restrictive limitations."

  4. Cervini v. Saul

    17-CV-2128 (JMA) (E.D.N.Y. May. 21, 2020)   Cited 13 times

    "Although the ALJ's reasoning could have been better articulated and more thorough, it is clear to the Court that the ALJ's credibility finding was amply based on the record." Douglas v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-00694, 2019 WL 1017341, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2019); see Battaglia, 2018 WL 1054371, at *4 ("[I]t would have made for easier review if the ALJ had written: 'I find plaintiff not credible for the following reasons,' and then listed each of the points set forth above. But most of these are in her decision, and no particular stylistic form is required to facilitate judicial review.