13‐2168‐cv
Harris 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 4th day of April, two thousand fourteen.
PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges,
RICHARD K. EATON,*
Judge.
______________________
DONALD HARRIS,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
‐v.‐ No. 13‐2168‐cv
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, in place
of Michael Astrue,
Defendant‐Appellee.1
*
The Honorable Judge Richard K. Eaton, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
1
The Clerk of the Court is direct to amend the official caption as set forth above.
1
______________________
FOR APPELLANT: JAYA SHURTLIFF, Stanley Law Offices, Syracuse , NY.
FOR APPELLEE: WILLIAM J. HOCHUL, JR., U.S. Attorney for the
Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY; (Monika K.
Crawford, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Office of the
General Counsel Social Security Administration, New
York, NY; Stephen P. Conte, on the brief).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of
New York (David G. Larimer, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Donald Harris appeals from the April 3, 2013 Decision and Order of the
United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.)
affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny Harris
supplemental security income and social security disability insurance benefits.
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
history, and the issues for review.
In deciding an appeal from a denial of disability benefits, we conduct a
plenary review of the administrative record, focusing on the administrative
ruling rather than the district court’s opinion. Moran v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 108, 112
2
(2d Cir. 2009). We review the Commissioner’s decision to determine if the
correct legal standards have been applied and if the decision is supported by
substantial evidence. Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 127 (2d Cir. 2008); see 42
U.S.C. § 405(g).
We reject Harris’s argument that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
who heard his case erred in his finding of Residual Functional Capacity. The ALJ
gave controlling weight to the opinion of Harris’s treating physicians, but
appropriately departed from the physician’s opinion where it concerned an issue
reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), (e)(1); 20 C.F.R. §§
416.927(d), (e)(1); Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999). We also reject
Harris’s argument that the ALJ erred by finding that his testimony about his pain
was not credible to the extent it was inconsistent with other evidence in the
record, as the ALJ properly gave specific reasons for his adverse credibility
finding, and those reasons were supported by substantial evidence in the record.
We see no grounds for disturbing the ALJ’s conclusion.
3
We have considered Harris’s remaining arguments and find they lack
merit. For the reasons given above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district
court.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4