Stewart v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 30

ORDER: SO ORDERED that deft's 13 motion to dismiss is granted. To the extent that plaintiffs letter dated August 12, 2011 can be construed as a motion for summary judgment, the 25 motion is denied, and the Commissioner's 26 motion to stay is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. CM to pro se plaintiff on 1/5/2012. Ordered by Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein on 1/4/2012. (Florio, Lisa)

F H, r- '1

i~'

u S.

*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------------------------)(
NATASHA STEWART,

r-··

>;: ,,

..

,,

'"r.;

LAA.... , 'I

l..j),N.Y.

JAN 0 4 2012

SJjF

*

!.

::

r

LONG ISLAND OFT'CE

Plaintiff,
ORDER
10-CV -3922 (SJF)

-againstMICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

-------------------------------------------------------------)(
FEUERSTEIN, J.

On August 18, 2010, prose plaintiffNatasha Stewart ("plaintiff') commenced this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and/or§ 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of defendant
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's (the "Commissioner" or "defendant")
determination that she has been disabled since August 30, 2006. Before the Court is the
Commissioner's motion to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)
("Def. Br.") [Docket Entry No. 13]. For the reasons that follow, the Commissioner's motion is
granted.

I.

Background

Plaintiffwas born in 1971, Administrative Transcript [Docket Entry Nos. 10-11] ("Tr.")
at 446, and states that she has a "history" of mental illness that "dates back to before 2001."
Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss [Docket Entry No. 18] ("Pl. Br.") at 2. Plaintiff

1

states that she was diagnosed with "schizophrenia paranoia type" and depression in 2002, id., and
she was hospitalized at Queens Hospital Center from October 9, 2002 to October 23, 2002, see
Tr. 194. The record reflects that plaintiff sought psychiatric treatment again on March 29, 2006
and April 22, 2006, when she visited Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia for
depression. See Tr. 139-87. Plaintiff stated that she worked in "various retail jobs" from 2001
through July 2006, and that she stopped working because her medication made her "very
lethargic." Tr. 45, 53-55, 59-61.
Plaintiff filed claims for Supplemental Security Income and disability insurance benefits
between August 30, 2006 and September 6, 2006, see Tr. at 442, 446-51, stating that she had
been disabled since January 1, 2001, Tr. 45. Plaintiff's claims were denied, and she requested a
hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ"). Tr. 23-24, 35-40. Plaintiff subsequently
appointed attorneys Richard Harris and Carolyn Rose ("Rose") as her representatives. Tr. 22, 33.
On June 30, 2008, plaintiff appeared with Rose for a hearing before ALJ Seymour Fier.
Tr. 441-44. A vocational expert and a medical expert were both present at the hearing. Tr. 442.
The hearing transcript reflects that ALJ Fier first had a discussion off the record with counsel and
the expert witnesses, during which it was agreed that "the claimant does meet the listings for
disability entitlement as of the date that she filed her applications." Tr. 442 (emphasis added).
Thus, plaintiff's attorney, the experts, and ALJ Fier all agreed that plaintiff qualified for benefits
only as of August 30, 2006, not as of January 1, 2001. When ALJ Fier asked whether "all parties
[were] in agreement," plaintiff's counsel responded affirmatively. ld. The record reflects that
counsel then stepped outside with plaintiff in order to explain the nature of the agreement. Tr.
442-43. After plaintiff and her attorney returned to the hearing room, the following exchange
2

took place on the record:
ALJ:
ATTY:
ALJ:
ATTY:
ALJ:
ATTY:
ALJ:
CLMT:
ALJ:

All right. I take it you've had a conference with your claimant.
Yes, I did.
And has your claimant understood what your- what we've
discussed?
Yes, she does.
And she agrees?
Yes.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Do you agree? Okay.

Tr. at 443. On August 29, 2008, ALJ Fier issued a fully favorable decision finding that plaintiff
had been disabled due to schizoaffective disorder and paranoia since August 30, 2006. Tr. 11-19.
The decision stated that "a settlement was reached wherein all parties acknowledged that the
claimant's earning's [sic] record showed earnings for 2006 and that her alleged disability onset
date should be amended to August 30, 2006." Tr. 13. The ALJ also noted that plaintiff's Title
XVI application had been withdrawn. Id.
On October 21, 2008, plaintiff- now appearing prose- requested review of ALJ Fier's
decision, claiming that she had become disabled in 2002. Tr. 7. The Appeals Council denied
plaintiff's request for review on June 15,2010. Tr. 4-6. This action followed.

II.

Discussion

Defendant argues that this case must be dismissed because ALJ Fier's decision was fully
favorable, and there is therefore no case and controversy. The Court agrees.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), "[a]ny individual, after any final decision of the

3

Commissioner of Social Security made after a hearing to which he was a party, ... may obtain a
review of such decision" by bringing a civil action in federal district court. However, as the
Second Circuit has noted, Section 405(g) "makes no provision for judicial review of a
determination favorable to the complainant." Jones v. Califano, 576 F.2d 12, 18 (2d Cir. 1978);
see also Wheeler v. Heckler, 719 F.2d 595,600 (2d Cir. 1983) ('judicial review offavorable
decisions is generally unavailable"). Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review an
administrative decision that was fully favorable to plaintiff. Louis v. Comm'r of Social Security,
No. 07-CV-0557, 2008 WL 1882706, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. April24, 2008), aff'd, 349 Fed. Appx.
576, 578 (2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009).
Although plaintiff originally alleged that her disability onset date was January 1, 2001,
Tr. 45, her attorney later stipulated to a disability onset date of "the date that she filed her
applications." As the ALJ ultimately determined that plaintiff had "been under a disability ...
from August 30, 2006 through the date of this decision," Tr. 19, the Commissioner's decision
was fully favorable. The complaint must therefore be dismissed. See, e.g., Bruno v. Astrue, No.
09 Civ. 4690,2010 WL 5653398 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2010) (Report and Recommendation),
adopted by 2011 WL 308372 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2011); Louis, 2008 WL 1882706.
Plaintiff argues that she did not authorize her attorney to change her disability onset date
or to withdraw her Title XVI application. See Pl. Br. at 3-4, 7. However, absent a showing of
coercion or deception, plaintiff is bound by the agreement of her attorney. Zabala v. Astrue, 595
F.3d 402,408 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.P.R.§ 416.1510(a)(3)-(4)); see also Klos v. Astrue, No.
09-CV -3039, 2010 WL 3463174, at* 11 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 201 0) (same). Here, there is no
evidence that plaintiff was coerced or deceived. On the contrary, the record suggests that both
4

....

.1-

;.

counsel and the ALJ took measures to ensure that plaintiff understood the nature of the
agreement. The record reflects that counsel and plaintiff left the hearing room in order to discuss
the matter. Tr. 442-43. Counsel stated that she believed plaintiff understood the stipulation, and
plaintiff also indicated that she understood. Id. Furthermore, the evidence in the administrative
transcript is consistent with the later disability onset date of August 30, 2006.
The Court has reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and finds them to be without
merit.

III.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss [Docket Entry No. 14] is
granted. To the extent that plaintiffs letter dated August 12, 2011 [Docket Entry No. 25] can be
construed as a motion for summary judgment, the motion is denied, and the Commissioner's
motion to stay [Docket Entry No. 26] is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close
this case.

SO ORDERED.

·Sandra J. Feu&fstein
United States District Judge
Dated:

January 4, 2012
Central Islip, New York

5