“While the ALJ is not required to adopt every limitation from a persuasive medical source, his findings and reasoning must nevertheless be articulated.” Id.; see also Long v. Berryhill, No. 18-CV-1146 (PKC), 2019 WL 1433077, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (internal citations omitted) (cleaned up)
” Long v. Berryhill, No. 18-CV-1146 (PKC), 2019 WL 1433077, at *2 n.3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1)). “It is incumbent upon the ALJ to provide a detailed rationale for either rejecting the limitations or deeming them accommodated by the limitations stated as part of the RFC assessment[.]” Id. at *4; see also, e.g., Chadirjian, 2019 WL 518542, at *10 (remanding because the ALJ “inappropriately substituted” doctor's assessed limitations on claimant's concentration and memory with the ALJ's own judgment that claimant could perform work so long as she was “limited to simple, routine and repetitive tasks”).
As plaintiff notes, “[i]t is not proper for a court to speculate that an ALJ ‘implicitly incorporated' limitations identified by a doctor into an RFC assessment”; “instead, ‘it is incumbent upon the ALJ to provide a detailed rationale for either rejecting the limitations or deeming them accommodated by the limitations stated as part of the RFC assessment.'” Dkt. No. 12 at 14 (quoting Long v. Berryhill, No. 18-CV-1146 (PKC), 2019 WL 1433077, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019)). However, contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the ALJ did not “implicitly reject[ ]” Dr. Grassl's opined limitations. Id. at 12.
As Aponte acknowledges, see Aponte Mem. at 15, an ALJ is "entitled to disregard favorable portions of [medical] opinions," as long as the ALJ gives "logical reasons to support [her] decision to do so." Long v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 1433077, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019); accord Guaylupo v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2022 WL 4358148, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2022). The ALJ's reasons for rejecting an opinion must be "adequately explained[,] such that there is 'an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to [her] conclusion."
Benique v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 4894582, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2021) ("It is not proper for a court to speculate that an ALJ 'implicitly incorporated' limitations identified by a doctor into an RFC assessment; instead, 'it is incumbent upon the ALJ to provide a detailed rationale for either rejecting the limitations or deeming them accommodated by the limitations stated as part of the RFC assessment.' ") (quoting Long v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 1433077, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019)), adopted, 2021 WL 4894612 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2021). Koza's argument here is a simple one: the ALJ failed to give reasons as to why he did not include the two moderate limitations at issue in his formulation of Koza's RFC, and thus the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence.
Patricia T. v. Kijakazi, No. 21-cv-1028, 2022 WL 3583634, at *34-35 (D.D.C. Aug. 22, 2022); see also Long v. Berryhill, No. 18-cv-1146, 2019 WL 1433077, at *11-12 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019). Here, there is no evidence that the ALJ “implicitly rejected” Dr. Nolte's opinions.
Although it is true that the burden was on the plaintiff to demonstrate that she was not capable of working, “it is incumbent upon the ALJ to provide a detailed rationale for either rejecting the [plaintiff's] limitations or deeming them accommodated by the limitations stated as part of the RFC assessment[.]” Long v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 1433077, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019).
Rather, “it is incumbent upon the ALJ to provide a detailed rationale for either rejecting the limitations or deeming them accommodate by the limitations stated as part of the RFC assessment, as the combination of even non-marked limitations ‘may narrow the range of other work' available” to the plaintiff. Long v. Berryhill, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55232 at *11-*12 (E.D.N.Y. 2019)(quoting Social Security Ruling 96-08)(remanding matter for further proceedings where ALJ gave “significant” weight to medical opinions describing a combination of moderate and marked mental health limitations, but did not explain how such limitations were accounted-for in the RFC determination).
Because the ALJ did not adequately explain this inconsistency, the Court is unable to conduct meaningful review of his decision. See Long v. Berryhill, No. 18-CV-1146 (PKC), 2019 WL 1433077, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (“[R]emand is appropriate where ‘inadequacies in the ALJ's analysis frustrate meaningful review,' such as when the ALJ makes credibility determinations and draws inferences from the record, yet fails to fully explain the basis for them.”)
Plaintiff maintains that it was error to not mention this probative evidence, and that it appears the ALJ “selectively relied” on “those portions of [the opinion] which supported the denial” of disability benefits to Claimant, “while failing to address portions of [the opinion] that favored the grant of benefits to” Claimant. Id. at 12-13 (quoting Long v. Berryhill, No. 18-CV-1146 (PKC), 2019 WL 1433077, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019)).