Vera Emma v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Vera Emma (“Emma”) challenges the district court’s decision to uphold the Commissioner of Social Security’s determination that Emma was not disabled for purposes of eligibility for supplemental security income.

Emma’s application for benefits was denied by the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on March 28, 2007. At the hearing, at which Emma was represented by counsel, the ALJ determined that Emma had a residual functional capacity with no exertional limitations and she had the ability to perform nonpublic simple and repetitive tasks. Based on this determination, the ALJ concluded at Step Five of the Sequential Analysis that Emma was not disabled because jobs existed in the national economy that she could perform. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a)(4)(v). In making his determination, the ALJ relied on inconsistencies in the medical evidence. Specifically, the ALJ found that treating physician Dr. Nicole Esposito’s reports contradicted one another. The ALJ further found that Dr. Esposito’s reports contradicted the reports of other treating and non-examining physicians who concluded that Emma was able to perform nonpublic simple and repetitive tasks. As a result, the…