Opinion
Civil Action 1:20-cv-00272-MJP
07-07-2021
CHARLES C. TATE, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
For the Plaintiff: LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER BY: ELIZABETH ANN HAUNGS, ESQ. For the Defendant: SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BY: JENNIFER E. WHELAN, ESQ.
ORDER
MARK W. PEDERSEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff filed an action seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, which denied his claim for Disability Insurance Benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). Both parties filed Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings, and oral argument was held on June 16, 2021.
This Court has reviewed the parties' competing motions together with their respective memoranda of law, and the arguments of Elizabeth Haungs, Esq., of the Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller, PLLC, attorney of record for Plaintiff, and Jennifer E. Whelan, Esq., Special Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, attorney of record for Defendant. Now, upon all pleadings, the administrative record, the parties' memoranda of law, and the arguments of the parties, It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED, for the reasons stated in open Court at the oral argument of this matter on June 16, 2021, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and the parties' consent, and consistent with this Court's ruling from the bench following that oral argument, the decision of defendant Commissioner is affirmed; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 13) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED and that the transcript of these proceedings shall be filed, and the Court Clerk shall issue Judgement in favor of the Commissioner and close this case.
SO ORDERED
June 16, 2021.
TRANSCRIPT OF JUDGE'S DECISION BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARK W. PEDERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
For the Plaintiff: LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER BY: ELIZABETH ANN HAUNGS, ESQ.
For the Defendant: SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BY: JENNIFER E. WHELAN, ESQ.
Audio Recorder: JAMES BOCK
Transcriber: MEGAN E. PELKA, RPR
Robert H. Jackson U.S. Courthouse
Proceedings recorded with electronic sound recording, transcript prepared with computer-aided transcription.
THE CLERK: Counsel, welcome back and thank you again for your thorough preparation. I am ready to issue my decision.
Title 42, U.S.C. Section 405(g) grants jurisdiction to district courts to hear claims based on the denial of Social Security benefits. Section 405(g) provides that the district court shall have the power to enter upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security with or without remanding the case for a rehearing.
It directs that when considering a claim, the Court must accept the findings of fact made by the Commissioner provided that such findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
To determine whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's findings, the Court must examine the entire record including contradictory evidence and evidence from which conflicting inferences can be drawn. Section 405(g) limits the scope of the Court's review to two inquiries; whether the Commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record and whether the Commissioner's conclusions are based upon an erroneous legal standard.
A person is disabled for the purposes of SSI and disability benefits if he or she is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically-determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.
In assessing whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must employ a five-step sequential analysis as outlined in Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F.2d 464, 467 (2d Cir. 1982). The claimant bears the burden of proving his or her case in steps 1 through 4. In step 5, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show there is other gainful work in the national economy which the claimant could perform.
The plaintiff's primary issue here is that the RFC made a -- the ALJ made a highly-specific RFC based simply on raw medical evidence in the record. I disagree. The MRI, although the ALJ did find it relevant, has interpretation on it from the radiologist and that MRI occurred three months before Dr. Dave, the consultant examiner, did her examination.
Even if Dr. Dave had been made aware of the MRI, I don't see how that would have changed anything because her examination was physical. She made a physical assessment of his ability to move his neck, for example. Contrast that, for example, with someone appearing with a cough that could be caused by a cold or bronchitis or lung cancer. In that case, an image would make a huge difference because if a spot appears on the lung, it could be considered cancer wherein the rest of it would be based on symptoms observed by the doctor.
Here, the doctor employed mechanical and physical examination to determine the range of motion of neck and the ALJ is typical of the medical evidence is supported of a decision. Therefor, I do find there is substantial evidence supporting it and I grant the Commissioner's motion for judgement on the pleadings and deny the plaintiff's motion an ask the Commissioner to settle an order with the plaintiff and attach and reference a transcript of this decision.
I direct the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment for the Commissioner and close this case. Again, counsel, thank you very much.
MS. WHELAN: Thank you, Your Honor. (Proceedings concluded.)