MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER In this appeal brought pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §405 et seq. (the “Act”), plaintiff Miguel Menard (the “Plaintiff” or the “Claimant”), challenges final determinations by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Defendant” or the “Commissioner”), that Menard was ineligible to receive Social Security disability insurance benefits. Presently before the Court are the parties’ cross motions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings. Docket Entry (“DE”) 20, 22. For the reasons that follow, defendant’s motion is denied, while plaintiff’s motion is granted and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. In its review, the Court has applied the frequently reiterated standards for entitlement to social security disability benefits, review of a denial of such benefits, consideration of motions for judgment on the pleadings, examination of the procedures employed, the substantial evidence rule and deference accorded to ALJ decisions, evaluation of vocational evidence and, importantly in this case, the treating physician rule. These standards, along with numerous authorities and citations, are discussed at length, merely by way of example in Zacharopoulos v. Saul, No. 19-5075 (GRB), 2021 WL 235630 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2021), which discussion is hereby incorporated by reference. The plaintiff, a former police officer and firefighter who suffers from, according to the ALJ, “medical[sic] determinable impairments related to claimant’s cervical spine, lumbar spine, right knee, right foot, obesity and asthma,” filed an application for disability benefits which was denied. Tr. at 16-24.1 Four treating physicians provided opinions suggesting that plaintiff suffered from limitations that would preclude gainful employment. Id. at 20-22. All four opinions were rejected by the ALJ, being accorded little or no weight, while the ALJ accorded “great weight” solely to the opinion of a consultative physician who saw plaintiff once and failed to review MRI findings in conjunction with his review. Id. Thus, once again, this Court is confronted with an opinion by an ALJ that rejects the opinions of multiple treating physicians in favor of a single consultant who failed to review available medical information. Compare Mackey v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., Nos. 14-cv-4424 (GRB); 19-cv-0092 (GRB), 2021 WL 630913, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2021). While the law provides for instances in which a treating physician’s opinion may be rejected by an ALJ, the ALJ’s reliance upon the consultative opinion was misplaced based upon the failure to consider the MRI results, which revealed findings of significant spinal abnormalities. Tr. at 219-20. The failure of the consulting physician to examine such evidence, standing alone, undermines the ALJ’s determination concerning the weight to be accorded that opinion. See Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 131 (2d Cir. 2008) (ALJ’s reliance on the testimony of a non-examining medical expert was flawed because the expert did not look at an MRI); Ingrassia v. Colvin, 239 F. Supp. 3d 605, 625 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (consulting physician’s failure to consider objective medical evidence undermines an ALJ’s reliance on that consulting physician). Despite an administrative record that runs nearly 700 pages, the Commissioner made no effort to obtain medical opinions concerning the significance of the MRI results. Rather, the Court is treated to an amateur review of MRI findings, with the ALJ providing a long, technical description of the results, which he then attempts to exorcise by the observation that “claimant testified that he could reach.” Tr. at 18. That inapposite observation, made without citation, differs from the evidence of record. See id. at 69 (plaintiff testifying that he cannot reach “without pain”). Additionally, though the ALJ nominally reviewed plaintiff’s impairments “in combination,” a review of the decision makes it plain that these impairments were considered individually. Id. at 16 (considering plaintiff’s sinusitis in isolation from his other conditions). Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to remand this matter for further proceedings is granted, and the Commissioner’s motion is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. SO ORDERED. Dated: February 19, 2021
