Valderrama v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

5 Citing cases

  1. Santoro v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    703 F. Supp. 3d 376 (E.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 7 times

    An RFC finding is a medical determination. Valderrama v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 379 F. Supp. 3d 141, 148 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). Because an ALJ is a layperson and not a medical doctor, the ALJ may not interpret raw medical data when determining a social security claimant's RFC.

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

    21-CV-1202 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 23, 2022)   Cited 4 times

    In reviewing a final decision of the Commissioner, the Court's role is “limited to determining whether the SSA's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence in the record and were based on a correct legal standard.” Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2012); see Valderrama v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 379 F.Supp.3d 141, 145 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Talavera, 697 F.3d at 151). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla.

  3. Heuser v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    20-CV-3601 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2022)   Cited 5 times
    Finding the ALJ erred in failing to develop the record to reconcile inconsistencies in medical source opinions

    In reviewing a final decision of the Commissioner, the Court's role is “limited to determining whether the SSA's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence in the record and were based on a correct legal standard.” Talavera, 697 F.3d at 151; see Valderrama v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 379 F.Supp.3d 141, 145 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Talavera, 697 F.3d at 151). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013).

  4. Williams v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    20-CV-02665 (DG) (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Third, Dr. Yevsikova issued her opinion on September 22, 2016, well over two years before Dr. Friedman issued his January 4, 2019 opinion. See Valderrama v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 379 F.Supp.3d 141, 147 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (“Two of these medical opinions were given two years before [the treating physician's] assessment . . . rendering them of limited probative value in rebutting the opinion of . . . Plaintiff's treating physician.”

  5. Richardson v. Saul

    19-CV-3603(EK) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    The applicable regulation has now been amended to eliminate the treating physician rule for applications filed after March 27, 2017. E.g., Valderrama v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 379 F.Supp.3d 141, 146 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c)). Because Plaintiff filed his application on April 13, 2016, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule.