Summary
declining to remand where "other portions of the ALJ's detailed decision demonstrate that substantial evidence supports this part of the ALJ's determination."
Summary of this case from Kaliegh O. ex rel. S.S.T. v. BerryhillOpinion
1:14-CV-1363 (GTS/WBC)
02-10-2016
YVONNE CHANDLER, on behalf of I.C., a minor, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant.
APPEARANCES: LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF NORTHEAST NEW YORK - ALBANY Counsel for Plaintiff 55 Colvin Avenue Albany, NY 12206 NEW YORK STATE SCH. BDS. ASS'N Counsel for Plaintiff 24 Century Hill Drive, Suite 200 Latham, NY 12110 U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN. OFFICE OF REG'L GEN. COUNSEL - REGION II Counsel for Defendant 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904 New York, NY 10278 OF COUNSEL: MICHAEL J. TELFER, ESQ. SHUBH NIGAM McTAGUE, ESQ. ROBERT R. SCHRIVER, ESQ.
APPEARANCES: LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF
NORTHEAST NEW YORK - ALBANY
Counsel for Plaintiff
55 Colvin Avenue
Albany, NY 12206 NEW YORK STATE SCH. BDS. ASS'N
Counsel for Plaintiff
24 Century Hill Drive, Suite 200
Latham, NY 12110 U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN.
OFFICE OF REG'L GEN. COUNSEL
- REGION II
Counsel for Defendant
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, NY 10278 OF COUNSEL: MICHAEL J. TELFER, ESQ. SHUBH NIGAM McTAGUE, ESQ. ROBERT R. SCHRIVER, ESQ. GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this Social Security action filed by Yvonne Chandler ("Plaintiff") on behalf of her daughter, I.C., against the Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant" or "the Commissioner") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, filed on January 12, 2016, recommending that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted. (Dkt. No. 18.) For the reasons set forth below, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted.
I. PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS
Generally, Plaintiff makes six arguments in objection to Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 19 at 1-7.) First, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Carter's recommendation that the ALJ did not err in determining that I.C. did not meet, medically equal, or functionally equal Listing 112.11 for attention deficit hyperactive disorder should be rejected because the ALJ (1) did not refer to the criteria for Listing 112.11 in the step three analysis, and (2) incorrectly assessed I.C.'s degree of limitation in the domain of attending and completing tasks. (Id. at 1-3.)
Second, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Carter's recommendation that the ALJ did not err in weighing the opinion of consultative examiner, Dennis Noia, Ph.D., should be rejected because the ALJ did not identify or explain the specific amount of weight afforded to the opinion of Dr. Noia despite affording less than controlling weight to the opinion of treating physician, Yousuf Ahmad, M.D. (Id. at 3-4.)
Third, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Carter's recommendation that the ALJ properly weighed the joint opinion of treating physician, Dr. Ahmad, and treating therapist, Cheryl Alban, L.C.S.W., should be rejected because the ALJ should have afforded controlling weight to the opinion under the treating physician rule. (Id. at 4-5.)
Fourth, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Carter's recommendation that the ALJ did not err in assessing the opinions of State agency pediatric consultant, D. Bostic, M.D., and State agency psychologist, M. Marks, should be rejected because the ALJ (1) failed to assign specific weight to the opinions, and (2) should have assigned no weight to the opinions because Dr. Bostic and Dr. Marks did not examine I.C. (Id. at 5-6.)
Fifth, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Carter's recommendation that the ALJ did not err in affording little weight to the opinion of teacher, J. Salimore, should be rejected because the opinion was consistent with the evidence of record and, therefore, the ALJ should have afforded the opinion greater weight. (Id. at 6-7.)
Sixth, and finally, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Carter's recommendation that the ALJ properly determined that I.C. did not functionally equal a Listing should be rejected because the ALJ erred in assessing the opinion evidence of record. (Id. at 7.)
II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, but they must be "specific written objections," and must be submitted "[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] . . . to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); accord, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). "Where, however, an objecting party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error." Caldwell v. Crosset, 9-CV-0576, 2010 WL 2346330, at * 1 (N.D.N.Y. June 9, 2010) (quoting Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 [N.D.N.Y. 2008]) (internal quotation marks omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
The Court finds that Plaintiff's objections restate the arguments set forth in Plaintiff's initial brief in this matter." (Compare Dkt. No. 12 with Dkt. No. 19.) Therefore, the Court reviews the portions of Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation addressed in Plaintiff's objections for clear error only. After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this action, including Magistrate Judge Carter's thorough Report and Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Carter employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 18.)
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner's determination is AFFIRMED ; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. Dated: February 10, 2016
Syracuse, New York
/s/_________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief, U.S. District Judge