From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Decarlo v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jun 17, 2009
8:06-CV-488 (LEK/VEB) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 17, 2009)

Summary

finding that requiring Plaintiff to have a formal diagnosis of mental retardation to meet or equal Listing 12.05 was "an improper interpretation of the legal standard"

Summary of this case from Labarge v. Colvin

Opinion

8:06-CV-488 (LEK/VEB).

June 17, 2009


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 28, 2009, by the Honorable Victor E. Bianchini, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(d) of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 15).

Within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, after a party has been served with a copy of a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), in compliance with L.R. 72.1. No objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to the Report-Recommendation filed by Judge Bianchini. Furthermore, after examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; Defendant's Motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; and the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is REMANDED to the Commissioner for a calculation of benefits; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Decarlo v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jun 17, 2009
8:06-CV-488 (LEK/VEB) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 17, 2009)

finding that requiring Plaintiff to have a formal diagnosis of mental retardation to meet or equal Listing 12.05 was "an improper interpretation of the legal standard"

Summary of this case from Labarge v. Colvin

finding that evidence a claimant attended special education classes, dropped out of school before graduation, or had difficulties in reading, writing, or math can be circumstantial evidence of deficits in adaptive functioning

Summary of this case from Geil v. Colvin

Listing 12.05C does not require a formal diagnosis of mental retardation; "[b]y requiring [p]laintiff to have a formal diagnosis of mental retardation, the ALJ has applied an improper legal standard, which necessitates remand"

Summary of this case from Green v. Colvin

applying plaintiff's lowest IQ score of 68 to find a 12.05C Listing

Summary of this case from Geil v. Colvin

attending special education classes and graduating with an IEP diploma supported finding that plaintiff had adaptive deficits before age 22

Summary of this case from Lyons v. Colvin
Case details for

Decarlo v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:JENNIFER DECARLO, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Jun 17, 2009

Citations

8:06-CV-488 (LEK/VEB) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 17, 2009)

Citing Cases

Lyons v. Colvin

"Thus, to meet Listing 12.05(C) Plaintiff must show (1) below average intellectual function with adaptive…

Geil v. Colvin

The record is replete with evidence of plaintiff's need for special education classes and such evidence is…