Plaintiff also complains that the ALJ did not explain the basis for his findings with specificity to permit judicial review. See Thomas v. Berryhill, 337 F.Supp.3d 235, 244 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (quotations and citations omitted).
“While opinions from ‘other sources' are ‘important' and ‘should be evaluated on key issues such as impairment severity and functional effects,' S.S.R. 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, *3 (S.S.A. Aug. 9, 2006), they are not ‘presumptively entitled to controlling weight.'” Thomas v. Berryhill, 337 F.Supp.3d 235, 240 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (citing Sirris v. Colvin, No. 15-CV-1003, 2016 WL 6090585, *3 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2016)). Nonetheless, “[t]he regulations permit consideration of opinions by other treating sources ‘to show the severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) and how it affects [the claimant's] ability to work.”
, “[w]hat is required is that the ALJ explain the bases for his findings with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review.” Thomas v. Berryhill, 337 F.Supp.3d 235, 244 (W.D.N.Y. 2018).
With respect to mental activities, the ALJ assesses the claimant's degree of limitation in four areas: (1) understanding, remembering, and applying information; (2) interacting with others; (3) concentrating, persisting, and maintaining pace; and (4) adapting and managing oneself. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(a),(c); see Thomas v. Berryhill, 337 F.Supp.3d 235, 239 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (discussing an ALJ's application of the “special technique” for non-exertional limitations). The ALJ then found that Thomas had the residual functional capacity (“RFC”)to “perform light work as defined in 20 C.F.R. 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b)” except that:
With respect to mental activities, the ALJ assesses the claimant's degree of limitation in four areas: (1) understanding, remembering, and applying information; (2) interacting with others; (3) concentrating, persisting, and maintaining pace; and (4) adapting and managing oneself. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a(a),(c); see Thomas v. Berryhill, 337 F.Supp.3d 235, 239 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (discussing an ALJ's application of the “special technique” for non-exertional limitations).
Remand is therefore appropriate. See generally Thomas v. Berryhill, 337 F.Supp.3d 235, 238 (W.D.N.Y. 2018)(remand is appropriate where ALJ failed to explain why portions of a physician opinion were not adopted).
The ALJ was not required to “have mentioned every item of testimony presented to him or have explained why he considered particular evidence unpersuasive or insufficient to lead him to a conclusion of disability.” Thomas v. Berryhill, 337 F.Supp.3d 235, 244 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Monguer v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033, 1040 (2d Cir. 1983)). The ALJ was required, however, to “explain the bases for his findings with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review,” Sewar v. Berryhill, Case No. 17-CV-6211L, 2018 WL 3569934, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 25, 2018).
2329939, at *6. See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f); Thomas v. Berryhill, 337 F.Supp.3d 235, 241 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) ("Although the ALJ is free to decide that the opinions of 'other sources' ... are entitled to no weight or little weight, those decisions should be explained and be based on all the evidence before the ALJ." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Winn v. Colvin, 541 F. App'x. 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013); see Thomas v. Berryhill, 337 F.Supp.3d 235, 244 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (citing Sewar v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 3569934, *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 25, 2018) (“What is required is that the ALJ explain the bases for his findings with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review.”))
With respect to basic mental work activities, the ALJ assesses the claimant's degree of limitation in four areas: (1) understanding, remembering, and applying information; (2) interacting with others; (3) concentrating, persisting, and maintaining pace; and (4) adapting and managing oneself. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(a), (c); see Thomas v. Berryhill, 337 F.Supp.3d 235, 239 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (discussing an ALJ's application of the “special technique” for non-exertional limitations). At step two of Susan's disability determination, the ALJ found her major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder to be non-severe.