Sizer v. Colvin , 592 F. App'x 46 ( 2015 )

14-980
Sizer v. Colvin
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER
JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S
LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER
THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A
SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of February, two thousand and
fifteen.
PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
RICHARD C. WESLEY,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges.
____________________________________________
TIMOTHY M. SIZER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
-v.- 14-980
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________________________________
FOR APPELLANT: JUSTIN GOLDSTEIN, Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller,
PLLC, Amherst, NY.
FOR APPELLEE: JOSHUA L. KERSHNER, Special Assistant United
States Attorney (Stephen P. Conte, Regional Chief
Counsel, Region II, Office of the General Counsel Social
Security Administration, on the brief), for William J.
Hochul, Jr., United States Attorney for the Western
District of New York, Buffalo, NY.
____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
New York (Telesca, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and
hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-Appellant Timothy Sizer (“Appellant”) appeals from a judgment
of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York,
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for
social security benefits. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying
facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
Appellant principally challenges the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)
residual functional capacity (“RFC”) determination that Appellant was capable
of performing sedentary work, as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(a), with
2
additional, enumerated limitations.1 This determination was based on the
medical opinion evidence, the objective medical evidence, and Appellant’s
testimony at the ALJ hearing. The ALJ properly accorded “little weight” to the
non-specialist medical opinion of Appellant’s treating physician because it was
inconsistent with “other substantial evidence in the case record” and, therefore,
undeserving of “controlling weight.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(c)(2); Halloran v.
Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam). The Commissioner’s
decision applied the appropriate legal standards and is supported by substantial
evidence in the administrative record.
We have considered all of Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them
to be without merit. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment
of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
1
In reviewing a denial of social security benefits, we conduct “a plenary review of the
administrative record to determine if there is substantial evidence, considering the record as a
whole, to support the Commissioner’s decision and if the correct legal standards have been
applied.” Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). Genuine conflicts in the medical
evidence are for the Commissioner to resolve. See Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir.
2008).
3