Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER: It is ordered that defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, the Commissioner's determination that the plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits under the Social Securit y Act is AFFIRMED, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the defendant based on this determination, and the # 1 Complaint filed by Tina Marie Taylor is DISMISSED in its entirety. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 5/22/2014. (jmb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

TINA MARIE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.
1:13-CV-790 (DEP)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

FOR PLAINTIFF
ERWIN, McCANE & DALY
23 Elk Street
Albany, NY 12207

THOMAS C. ERWIN, ESQ.

FOR DEFENDANT
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney
P.O. Box 7198
100 S. Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261-7198
DAVID E. PEEBLES
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GRAHAM MORRISON, ESQ.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER
Currently pending before the court in this action, in which plaintiff
seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative determination by the
Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), are
cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. 1 Oral argument was heard in
connection with those motions on May 13, 2014, during a telephone
conference conducted on the record. 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 this appeal.
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

1

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.

2

ORDERED, as follows:
1)

Defendant=s motion for judgment on the pleadings is

GRANTED.
2)

The Commissioner=s determination that the 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 respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon

this determination, DISMISSING plaintiff=s complaint in its entirety.

Dated:

May 22, 2014
Syracuse, NY

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------x
TINA MARIE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
vs.

13-CV-790

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------x
Decision rendered on May 13, 2014
James Hanley Federal Building, Syracuse, New York,
HONORABLE DAVID E. PEEBLES, United States
Magistrate-Judge, Presiding.
A P P E A R A N C E S (by telephone)
For Plaintiff:

ERWIN, MCCANE LAW FIRM
Attorneys at Law
23 Elk Street
Albany, New York 12207
BY: THOMAS C. ERWIN, ESQ.

For Defendant:

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of General Counsel
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
BY: GRAHAM MORRISON, ESQ.

Eileen McDonough, RPR, CRR
Official United States Court Reporter
P.O. Box 7367
Syracuse, New York 13261
[phone]

2

1

THE COURT:

Well, I appreciate both of your

2

briefings and oral argument.

3

judgment on the pleadings, cross-motions actually, in a case

4

seeking judicial review under 42, United States Code, Section

5

405(g) of a Commissioner's determination finding that the

6

plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times.

7

I have before me a motion for

By way of background, the plaintiff is a female

8

with a date of birth in December 1970.

She was 37 years old

9

at the alleged onset date, 41 at the date of hearing.

She

10

has one year of college education.

It's unclear whether

11

she's married or not.

12

indicates I think during the hearing transcript she's not

13

married but there is a reference in the record in one of her

14

medical records to being married to her partner.

15

children.

She has a partner.

At one point it

She has no

16

She last worked in November of 2008.

17

work history that includes working as a home health care

18

provider and some other short-term jobs such as cashier.

19

She has a

She clearly has a lumbar condition, although it is

20

relatively modest.

She underwent Magnetic Resonance Imaging

21

testing in April of 2011.

22

and 336 of the Administrative Transcript.

23

bulging.

24

anything more than 20 pounds.

25

light duty under the Commissioner's regulations.

And that is repeated at both 234
Reflects modest

She testified in her hearing that she doesn't carry
Certainly consistent with

3

1

She suffers from degenerative disc disease

2

according to the MRI.

3

chiropractor treatment, injections, spinal stimulator and

4

pain medications.

5

She's undergone physical therapy,

She also suffers from post-traumatic stress

6

disorder, depression and anxiety.

She's been securing

7

treatment at the Caleo Counseling Center.

8

Dr. Donald Kowalski monthly mostly for the prescription of

9

drugs and has sessions with other providers at Caleo more

She sees

10

frequently.

11

three days in March of 2011.

12

information or records concerning that hospitalization.

13

She underwent one brief hospitalization for
The record doesn't contain any

She applied in March of 2011 for disability

14

insurance benefits and supplemental security income alleging

15

an onset date of November of 2008.

16

were denied at the agency initial level, a hearing was

17

conducted by an Administrative Law Judge, Robert Wright, on

18

May 15, 2012.

19

And the Social Security Administration Appeals Council denied

20

review on June 18, 2013, making the ALJ's decision a final

21

determination of the agency.

22

After those applications

ALJ Wright issued a decision on June 6, 2012.

In his decision ALJ Wright applied the well-known

23

five step test for determining disability.

Concluded at step

24

one that plaintiff had not engaged in substantial gainful

25

activity since the alleged onset.

4

1

Found that she did suffer from PTSD, depression,

2

anxiety, degenerative disc disease and obesity as

3

constituting severe limitations at step two, but rejected

4

high blood pressure and asthma in light of the fact that they

5

both appear to have been well controlled and, therefore, do

6

not substantially interfere with her ability to perform work

7

functions.

8

At step three he found that she did not meet or

9

equal medically any of the listed presumptively disabling

10

conditions.

11

And step four he concluded that the plaintiff

12

maintains the residual functional capacity to perform light

13

work, subject to limitations including to work, as the

14

Commissioner has argued, in a SVP-1 or 2 position with only

15

occasional decision-making, changes in work setting and

16

interaction with others, and the requirement that she be able

17

to change positions every thirty minutes.

18

Applying that RFC, the Commissioner concluded that

19

the plaintiff is incapable of performing her past relevant

20

work.

21

Rule 202.20, which would have directed a no disabled or not

22

disabled finding.

23

non-exertional limitations, the testimony of a vocational

24

expert was received and based on a hypothetical which tracks

25

the RFC and plaintiff's other characteristics, the vocational

He applied the grids as a framework, and specifically

But because of the existence of

5

1

expert concluded that plaintiff could perform as an

2

electrical assembler or a table worker.

3

The standard of review, of course, that the Court

4

must apply is very deferential.

5

whether correct legal standards were applied and whether the

6

decision was supported by substantial evidence, which is

7

defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

8

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

9

Requires me to determine

In this case I've considered the arguments of

10

counsel.

11

substantial evidence.

12

the physical aspects of the RFC finding.

13

indicated at page 20 of the Administrative Transcript she can

14

lift 20 pounds.

15

the extent of her pain and the limitations imposed by it.

16

I find that the RFC determination is supported by
Doesn't appear to be any quarrel with
Plaintiff herself

The record is fairly modest when it comes to

During many visits to her health care providers for

17

other conditions she doesn't even mention back pain, or if

18

she does, it's dull, moderate, two on a scale of ten, four on

19

a scale of ten, zero on a scale of ten.

20

performed a consultative examination on June 15, 2011, found

21

normal range of motion and only localized discomfort.

22

And Dr. Paolano, who

The real issue here, of course, is the mental

23

aspect.

The record contains some indication of some serious

24

effect of her mental conditions.

25

finding of 45, that is at page 304 of the record, which would

At one point there is a GAF

6

1

suggest serious symptoms and serious impairment in social,

2

occupational or school functioning.

3

also GAF findings of 50 at page 315 of the record, 55, and

4

70.

5

mild symptoms or some difficulty in social, occupational or

6

school functioning.

7

However, there are other

Seventy, of course, is a score that indicates only some

The consultative examination of Dr. Dambrocia on

8

June 16, 2014, found only modest limitations.

That's

9

examination of the records, as I understand it.

Found only

10

modest limitations in four of the twenty categories, and

11

those limitations in my view are adequately reflected in the

12

RFC finding.

13

The consultative examination of Dr. Gina

14

Scarano-Osika on June 11 shows a claimant who is fully

15

oriented, average intellectual functioning, GAF of 70, and

16

does not substantiate the extent of the effect of her mental

17

condition on claimant's claimed ability to work.

18

I reviewed carefully the plaintiff's hearing

19

testimony and it doesn't really bear out the claim that she

20

suffers with frequent anxiety attacks.

21

Commissioner that in any event the Caleo records of

22

plaintiff's treatment don't support that.

23

extent I think the ALJ's credibility finding is supported by

24

substantial evidence.

25

And I agree with the

And so to that

I find that the hypothetical example given to the

7

1

vocational expert fairly reflects the RFC finding, which I

2

have also concluded is supported by substantial evidence.

3

And so the vocational expert's testimony supports the finding

4

that the plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times

5

because she is able to perform two jobs that are available in

6

the national economy.

7

So, I conclude that the finding of the ALJ is

8

supported by substantial evidence and was not the product of

9

improper legal principles.

And so I will grant defendant's

10

motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismiss plaintiff's

11

complaint.

12

I'll issue a short form order and attach a copy of

13

this decision.

14

presentations on the part of both parties.

15

much.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

And again I appreciate excellent

*

*

Thank you so

*

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

I, EILEEN MCDONOUGH, RPR, CRR, Federal Official
Realtime Court Reporter, in and for the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York,
do hereby certify that pursuant to Section 753, Title 28,
United States Code, that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of the stenographically reported proceedings held
in the above-entitled matter and that the transcript page
format is in conformance with the regulations of the
Judicial Conference of the United States.

________________________________
EILEEN MCDONOUGH, RPR, CRR
Federal Official Court Reporter