Staples v. Colvin

9 Citing cases

  1. Tammy H. v. Saul

    No. 1:19-cv-00488-DBH (D. Me. Oct. 25, 2020)

    At oral argument, the plaintiff's counsel asserted that, in purporting to give some weight to his client's testimony, the ALJ had ignored the major problem: that the plaintiff had testified that she was unable to work on a regular basis, arriving late, leaving early, or not showing up at all. As a result, he reasoned, the ALJ did not rely in any meaningful way on his client's statements or give her the benefit of the doubt but, rather, impermissibly construed the raw medical evidence. He cited Staples v. Colvin ("Donald Staples II"), No. 2:15-cv-392-DBH, 2016 WL 4146083 (D. Me. Aug. 3, 2016) (rec. dec., aff'd Oct. 6, 2016), for the proposition that an ALJ's RFC finding must be traceable to evidence of record - a link that he contended is missing here. As a result, he argued, the case of Christopher G. v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-cv-00289-JHR, 2018 WL 4658676 (D. Me. Sept. 27, 2018), is controlling in his client's favor.

  2. Wendi C. M. v. Saul

    No. 1:18-cv-00332-JHR (D. Me. Sep. 8, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    See Statement of Errors at 5-6; Lisa Staples, 2017 WL 1011426, at *4 (mental RFC determination that was neither supported by expert opinion nor the product of a common-sense judgment was unsupported by substantial evidence). Second, she asserts that, as in Staples v. Colvin ("Donald Staples II"), No. 2:15-cv-392-DBH, 2016 WL 4146083 (D. Me. Aug. 3, 2016) (rec. dec., aff'd Oct. 6, 2016), there is no apparent connection between that limitation and any particular evidence of record. See Statement of Errors at 16-17; Donald Staples II, 2016 WL 4146083, at *5 ("[W]hen a claimant raises the issue, the connection between a functional limitation included in an RFC and some particular evidence in the record must be apparent. . . . The absence of such a connection demonstrates that the [ALJ] drew a conclusion that either was without support in the evidence or was beyond his capacity as a lay person to draw and, therefore, would also make it necessary to remand this case[.]").

  3. Allison P. v. Berryhill

    No. 2:18-cv-00061-JHR (D. Me. Mar. 24, 2019)   Cited 8 times

    Id. at 5. She cites, inter alia, Staples v. Berryhill ("Lisa Staples"), No. 1:16-cv-00091-GZS, 2017 WL 1011426 (D. Me. Mar. 15, 2017) (rec. dec., aff'd Mar. 30, 2017), Staples v. Colvin ("Donald Staples II"), No. 2:15-cv-392-DBH, 2016 WL 4146083 (D. Me. Aug. 3, 2016) (rec. dec., aff'd Oct. 6, 2016), and Staples v. Astrue ("Donald Staples I"), Civil No. 09-440-P-S, 2010 WL 2680527 (D. Me. June 29, 2010) (rec. dec., aff'd July 19, 2010), in support of that proposition. See id. at 7.

  4. Ronald A. v. Berryhill

    No. 2:17-cv-00368-JHR (D. Me. Mar. 24, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Frost v. Barnhart, No. 03-215-P-H, 2004 WL 1529286, at *3 (D. Me. May 7, 2004) (rec. dec., aff'd June 3, 2004). The plaintiff observes that this court cited Drummond with favor in Staples v. Colvin, No. 2:15-cv-392-DBH, 2016 WL 4146083, at *2 (D. Me. Aug. 3, 2016) (rec. dec., aff'd Oct. 6, 2016), as did the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Mantilla v. Colvin, Civil Action No. 15-11913-FDS, 2016 WL 3882838, at *5-6 (D. Mass. July 13, 2016). See Statement of Errors at 6 n.2.

  5. Hastings v. Berryhil

    2018 DNH 185 (D.N.H. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    The court is further persuaded by decisions from the District of Maine and elsewhere holding that "reconsideration of the finding at Step 2 that a claimant's impairment is severe is foreclosed when the remand order does not specifically direct the [ALJ] to undertake that task." Staples v. Colvin, No. 2:15-cv-392-DBH, 2016 WL 4146083, at *2 (D. Me. Aug. 3, 2016), report and recommendation, adopted by 2016 WL 5854510 (D. Me. Oct. 6, 2016) (citing Day v. Astrue, No. 1:12-cv-141-DBH, 2012 WL 6913439, at *5 (D. Me. Dec. 30, 2012), report and recommendation adopted by 2013 WL 214571 (D. Me. Jan. 18, 2013)); see also Drummond v. Comm'r Soc. Sec., 126 F.3d 837, 842 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that ALJ may not change finding of severe impairment to not severe on remand absent evidence of improvement in plaintiff's condition); Carrillo v. Heckler, 599 F. Supp. 1164, 1168 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ("[T]he remand order specifically stated the purpose for remand. That purpose did not include reconsideration of the severity of plaintiff's impairments. Reconsideration by the ALJ of that issue, therefore, was inconsistent with and beyond the scope of [the remand] order.").

  6. Chantal v. Berryhill

    No. 2:16-cv-00575-JDL (D. Me. Jan. 29, 2018)

    See id. at 12. As the commissioner points out, see SOE Opposition at 12, SSR 83-20 is inapposite because there was no prior finding of disability at the time of the ALJ's decision, see, e.g., Staples v. Colvin, No. 2:15-cv-392-DBH, 2016 WL 4146083, at *5 (D. Me. Aug. 3, 2016) (rec. dec., aff'd Oct. 6, 2016). Even if the ruling were applicable, it requires that a medical advisor be called to infer onset date of disability only when the medical evidence of date of onset is ambiguous. See, e.g., Hughes v. Colvin, No. 2:15-cv-150-JHR, 2016 WL 225688, at *2 (D. Me. Jan. 19, 2016).

  7. Day v. Berryhill

    No. 1:16-cv-00593-JAW (D. Me. Nov. 2, 2017)   Cited 11 times
    Discounting a provider's opinion is permissible where there is an inconsistency between expert opinion and a plaintiff's activity level

    To the extent the evidence is "inconclusive," it is the plaintiff's burden at Step 2 to demonstrate that her impairments are severe. See, e.g., McDonald, 795 F.2d at 1124. At oral argument, the plaintiff's counsel contended that remand was warranted because the ALJ erred in revisiting the prior finding of a severe back impairment absent explanation for the change, a proposition for which he cited Staples v. Colvin, No. 2:15-cv-392-DBH, 2016 WL 4146083 (D. Me. Aug. 3, 2016) (rec. dec., aff'd Oct. 6, 2016). As the plaintiff's counsel acknowledged, this argument was not made in the statement of errors.

  8. Hadley v. Berryhill

    No. 1:16-cv-00568-JAW (D. Me. Oct. 29, 2017)   Cited 1 times
    In Hadley, this court deemed "illogical" an ALJ's statement that she had given weight to the opinions of agency nonexamining consultants "to the extent consistent with her assessed RFC" when those consultants had not assessed a mental RFC, and the ALJ elsewhere had stated that "she had incorporated limitations supported by the objective evidence of record" into her RFC finding.

    The plaintiff asserts that remand is warranted because the ALJ failed to explain how she derived her RFC from the evidence. See Statement of Errors at 7 (citing Staples v. Colvin ("Donald Staples II"), No. 2:15-cv-392-DBH, 2016 WL 4146083, at *5 (D. Me. Aug. 3, 2016) (rec. dec., aff'd Oct. 6, 2016); Staples v. Astrue ("Donald Staples I"), Civil No. 09-440-P-S, 2010 WL 2680527, at *6 (D. Me. June 29, 2010) (rec. dec., aff'd July 19, 2010)). The commissioner does not contest that Donald Staples I, if controlling, is dispositive in the plaintiff's favor.

  9. Pressey v. Berryhill

    No. 2:16-cv-00425-JDL (D. Me. Jun. 25, 2017)   Cited 17 times
    In Pressey, in assessing a physical RFC more favorable to the plaintiff than any of the expert opinions of record, the ALJ emphasized the weight that she had given to the opinions of agency consultants and the fact that she found new evidence adduced at the hearing level not to be of any significant evidentiary weight.

    Knudsen v. Colvin, No. 2:14-cv-155-JFIR, 2015 WL 1505689 at *5 (D. Me. Apr. 1, 2015). At oral argument, the plaintiff's counsel cited Staples v. Colvin, No. 2:15-cv-392-DBH, 2016 WL 4146083 (D. Me. Aug. 3, 2016) (rec. dec., aff'd Oct. 6, 2016), Taylor v. Astrue, 899 F. Supp.2d 383 (D. Mass. 2012), and Crosby v. Heckler, 638 F. Supp. 383 (D. Mass. 1985), for the proposition that the ALJ's failure to explain how she derived her physical RFC finding is reversible error. As counsel for the commissioner rejoined, the ALJ explained that she gave strong weight to the opinions of Drs. Trumbull and Weinberg, both of whom had the benefit of review of the treatment record, and to the Charkowick report.