Lumpkin v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
17
ORDER. Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; The Commissioner's determination that plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times is VACATED; The matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The clerk is directed to enter judgment based on this determination. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 3/26/2015. (lah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BARBARA DIANE LUMPKIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No.
1:14-CV-865 (DEP)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR PLAINTIFF
DOLSON LAW OFFICE
126 North Salina St., Suite 3B
Syracuse, NY 13202
MAGGIE W. McOMBER, ESQ.
FOR DEFENDANT
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney for the
Northern District of New York
P.O. Box 7198
100 S. Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261-7198
DAVID E. PEEBLES
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VERNON NORWOOD, 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, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), are cross-motions for
judgment on the pleadings. 1 Oral argument was conducted in connection
with those motions on March 25, 2015 during a telephone conference, held
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 did not result from the application of proper
legal principles and is not 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, a transcript of which is attached and 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)
Plaintiff motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.
s
2)
The Commissioner determination that plaintiff was not
s
disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits under the
Social Security Act, is VACATED.
3)
The matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner, without
a directed finding of disability, for further proceedings consistent with this
determination.
4)
The clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon
this determination, remanding the matter to the Commissioner pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
405(g) and closing this case.
Dated: March 26, 2015
Syracuse, New York
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------x
BARBARA DIANE LUMPKIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
1:14-CV-865
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------x
Transcript of a Decision held during a
Telephone Conference on March 25, 2015, at the
James Hanley Federal Building, 100 South Clinton
Street, Syracuse, New York, the HONORABLE DAVID E.
PEEBLES, United States Magistrate Judge, Presiding.
A P P E A R A N C E S
(By Telephone)
For Plaintiff:
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DOLSON
Attorneys at Law
126 North Salina Street
Suite 3B
Syracuse, New York 13202
BY: MAGGIE W. McOMBER, ESQ.
For Defendant:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of Regional General Counsel
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
BY: VERNON NORWOOD, ESQ.
Jodi L. Hibbard, RPR, CRR, CSR
Official United States Court Reporter
100 South Clinton Street
Syracuse, New York 13261-7367
(315) 234-8547
14
(In Chambers, Counsel present by telephone.)
1
2
THE COURT:
Well, I appreciate the excellent oral
3
and written presentations of counsel.
4
I have a request for judicial review of an administrative
5
determination of the Commissioner.
6
As I indicated before,
The background of this case is as follows:
The
7
plaintiff was born in August of 1960 and is currently 54
8
years of age.
9
sometimes, although, and it was a little -- she was a little
She lives with her daughter and family
10
reluctant I think to admit until it was brought out during
11
the hearing, she also takes care of her elderly aunt who
12
suffers from dementia approximately 80 percent of the time.
13
Her past relevant work has included working as a life skills
14
assistant with ARC, an office administrator, an office
15
worker, a receptionist, and a submarine sandwich maker.
16
is found at various places including 147 of the
17
administrative transcript.
18
That
She underwent surgery on September 14, 2010 by
19
Dr. Craig Goldberg.
20
and foraminectomy and a discectomy, that's at 290 and 291 of
21
the administrative transcript.
22
doing well and she was released by Dr. Goldberg to work on
23
November 5, 2010, that's at 291.
24
25
She had a right L5-S1 hemilaminectomy
After the surgery she was
The situation was exacerbated when she slipped
exiting her daughter's pool in or about September of 2011 and
JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
15
1
required a trip to the emergency room the next day.
2
since that time, has been on Flexeril and hydrocodone, has
3
seen both Dr. Darah Wright since December of 2010, and saw
4
Dr. Goldberg once in September of 2011.
5
Dr. Peter Bennett and a Dr. Korn.
6
She,
She has also seen
She underwent magnetic resonance imaging or MRI
7
testing in November of 2011.
That testing did result in
8
findings of some, I will say degenerative situations.
9
MRI report indicates a small right paracentral disk
The
10
protrusion and enhancement causing right lateral recess
11
stenosis at L5-S1, status post right laminectomy and
12
discectomy, a sacral cyst which causes slight mass effect on
13
the right S1 nerve root sleeve, a small left foraminal
14
annular tear of the L3-L4 disk, and mild degeneration of the
15
L4-L5 disk.
16
She has visited with various of her treating
17
sources who from time to time have observed decreased range
18
of motion and tenderness in her back although it was -- it
19
has alternatively been reported that her pain is well
20
controlled by medication.
21
As counsel has noted, there was a medical source
22
statement issued by Dr. Wright in August of 2012 at 281, 282
23
that was very restrictive and inconsistent with a finding of
24
light work.
25
Procedurally, the plaintiff applied for Disability
JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
16
1
Insurance benefits in September of 2011, alleging an onset
2
date of June 7, 2010.
3
November 28, 2012 by Administrative Law Judge Arthur Patane.
4
Judge Patane issued the decision on January 25, 2013, in
5
which he concluded that plaintiff retains residual functional
6
capacity to perform a full range of light work, and concluded
7
that she is capable of performing her past relevant work as a
8
receptionist.
9
disabled at the relevant times.
10
The hearing was conducted on
The ALJ therefore determined she was not
The ALJ's decision became final determination of
11
the agency when, on June 4, 2014, the Social Security
12
Administrative Appeals Council denied review.
13
The standard of review, as you know, is extremely
14
deferential.
15
principles were applied and the decision is supported by
16
substantial evidence.
17
substantial evidence as "such relevant evidence as a
18
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
19
conclusion."
20
I am required to determine whether proper legal
The Supreme Court has defined
The first argument that counsel has made concerns
21
the rejection of the treating source assessment statement
22
from Dr. Wright.
23
proper and that it was well explained.
24
lift-and-carry limitations in particular of Dr. Wright are
25
inconsistent with and directly contradicted by testimony and
I find that that, the rejection of that was
The extreme
JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
17
1
statements of the plaintiff concerning her ability to lift
2
and carry.
3
statements were made during the hearing at page 31 that
4
plaintiff can lift 30 pounds, at page 137; 139 she stated she
5
can lift 20 pounds; in June of 2010 she stated she can lift
6
25 pounds, that's at 194; in November of 2011 she stated she
7
could do light duty, that's at 288, and there are several
8
other references.
9
good health in February of 2012 and can lift up to 25 pounds.
10
As I indicated in my -- during the oral argument,
Dr. Korn notes that she stated she was in
The issue I have here, quite honestly, is that
11
there is absolutely no medical evidence that specifically
12
states what plaintiff's limitations are concerning sit-stand
13
and the number of days she would be absent, if you discount
14
Dr. Wright's opinions, you're left with nothing.
15
I read with great interest the case that was cited,
16
Walker v. Astrue, and it was actually cited I think by the
17
Commissioner, from the Western District of New York at 2010
18
WL 2629832, it was from June 11, 2010, and I found this to be
19
an extremely similar case.
20
that because of the limited evidence in the record concerning
21
plaintiff's functional limitations, the ALJ should have
22
ordered a consultative examination or attempted to recontact
23
plaintiff's treating physicians to complete the record, and I
24
was persuaded that that's the case here as well.
25
In that case the judge concluded
The -- I know the plaintiff has asked for a remand
JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
18
1
with a directed finding of disability.
2
persuasive evidence of disability and I am convinced that in
3
the end, when a consultative exam is ordered and proper
4
medical evidence adduced, she will be found not to be
5
disabled, but I cannot say that there is substantial evidence
6
in the record to support the ALJ's conclusion.
7
consultative examination should have been ordered, and so I
8
will therefore grant judgment on the pleadings to the
9
plaintiff and vacate the Commissioner's determination and
10
remand for further proceedings, including scheduling of a
11
consultative examination.
12
13
I don't find any
I think a
Again, I appreciate oral argument this afternoon
and I hope you have a good afternoon, thank you.
14
MS. McOMBER:
Thank you.
15
MR. NORWOOD:
You're welcome.
16
(Proceedings Adjourned, 4:07 p.m.)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
1
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
2
3
4
I, JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR, Federal
5
Official Realtime Court Reporter, in and for the
6
United States District Court for the Northern
7
District of New York, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that
8
pursuant to Section 753, Title 28, United States
9
Code, that the foregoing is a true and correct
10
transcript of the stenographically reported
11
proceedings held in the above-entitled matter and
12
that the transcript page format is in conformance
13
with the regulations of the Judicial Conference of
14
the United States.
15
16
Dated this 26th day of March, 2015.
17
18
19
/S/ JODI L. HIBBARD
20
JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
Official U.S. Court Reporter
21
22
23
24
25
JODI L. HIBBARD, RPR, CRR, CSR
(315) 234-8547
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?