From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goyette v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, N.D. New York
May 28, 2008
Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-0886 (DEP) (N.D.N.Y. May. 28, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-0886 (DEP).

May 28, 2008

FOR PLAINTIFF ERWIN, MCCANE LAW FIRM THOMAS C. ERWIN, ESQ. Albany, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ. Social Security Administration, New York, NY.


ORDER


Currently pending in this action, in which plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative determination by the Commissioner, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. Oral argument was conducted in connection with those motions on May 20, 2008 during a telephone conference which was both digitally recorded, and at which a court reporter was also present. At the close of argument I issued a bench decision in which, after applying the requisite deferential review standard, I found that the Commissioner's determination resulted from the application of proper legal principles and is supported by substantial evidence, providing further detail regarding my reasoning and addressing the specific issues raised by the plaintiff in her appeal.

This matter, which is before me on consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), has been treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in General Order No. 18 (formerly, General Order No. 43) which was issued by the Hon. Ralph W. Smith, Jr., Chief United States Magistrate Judge, on January 28, 1998, and subsequently amended and reissued by Chief District Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., on September 12, 2003. Under that General Order an action such as this is considered procedurally, once issue has been joined, as if cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings had been filed pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

After due deliberation, and based upon the court's oral bench decision, which has been transcribed, is attached to this order, and is incorporated herein by reference, it is hereby

ORDERED, as follows:

1) Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

2) The Commissioner's determination that plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, is AFFIRMED.

3) The clerk is directed to enter judgment, based upon this determination, dismissing plaintiffs complaint in its entirety.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I've reviewed carefully the record and considered the arguments raised by the plaintiff. I have to say that I found the Administrative Law Judge's decision refreshingly well-formulated and I thought it was extremely defensible. In fact, I thought it was dead-on in terms of digesting the relevant information in the record and setting out findings regarding the extent, if any, of plaintiff's limitations in the specified areas, both under the "B" criteria of the two Listings involved and the six domains of the functional equivalent test.

I've reviewed carefully the records, including Dr. Brand and Dr. Burky's reports, reports from Dr. Herrick and Dr. Blaber and Ms. Llewellyn-Southern. And it is clear to me, first, that plaintiff cannot meet two of the four age-appropriate criteria of the "B" Listings, in that she cannot establish marked impairment in any of the specified four areas, with the possible exception of age-appropriate social functioning. And so I think that the ALJ's decision rejecting the possibility of plaintiff meeting or medically equal Listings 112.04 and 112.08 is supported by substantial evidence.

Turning to the issue of functional equivalent, the ALJ found, as you know, a marked impairment in only one of the six specified areas and no extreme impairment. I agree that the evidence supports a finding of impairment of plaintiff's ability to interact with and relate with others, but I do not agree that it is extreme. The definition of extreme is that the limitation interferes very seriously with the claimant's ability to independently initiate, sustain or complete activities. I don't think that that burden has been met. And, in any event, I believe that a finding that the limitation in this domain area is only marked is supported by substantial evidence.

I similarly find that the ALJ's determination that the plaintiff does not suffer from marked limitation in any of the other five areas is supported by substantial evidence. I think that to the extent, if any, that plaintiff's mother's testimony was rejected as not credible, I think it was well explained and don't think that it would alter the result, in any event.

So, based on my review, I find that the proper legal principles were applied and that the Commissioner's determination is supported by substantial evidence and will, therefore, grant defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing plaintiff's complaint. And we'll issue a short form order memorializing that determination and incorporating the bench decision in reference for purposes of any further appeal.

I appreciate you both participating and I thought the issues were extremely well briefed on both sides and well argued.

MR. NORWOOD: Thank you, Judge.
MR. McCANE: Thank you for your time.
THE COURT: Have a good afternoon, Counsel.
* * *


Summaries of

Goyette v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, N.D. New York
May 28, 2008
Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-0886 (DEP) (N.D.N.Y. May. 28, 2008)
Case details for

Goyette v. Commissioner of Social Security

Case Details

Full title:BRITTANY GOYETTE, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant

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

Date published: May 28, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-0886 (DEP) (N.D.N.Y. May. 28, 2008)