Hamilton v. Astrue

Filing 23

ORDER: ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Bianchini's March 29, 2012 19 Report andRecommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety; ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgm ent on the pleadings is DENIED; ORDERS that Defendant's decision denying benefits is REVERSED; ORDERS that this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with Magistrate Judge Bianchini's Report and Recommendation pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 3/12/2013. (mgh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________
WILLIAM HAMILTON,
Plaintiff,
v.

3:09-CV-1199
(FJS/VEB)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,1
Defendant.
_____________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

LACHMAN & GORTON
1500 East Main Street
P.O. Box 89
Endicott, New York 13761-0089
Attorneys for Plaintiff

PETER A. GORTON, ESQ.

SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE
OF REGIONAL GENERAL
COUNSEL - REGION II
26 Federal Plaza - Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
Attorneys for Defendant

ELIZABETH ROTHSTEIN, ESQ.
ELLEN E. SOVERN, ESQ.
MARIA P. FRAGASSI SANTANGELO, ESQ.

SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
In October 2006, Plaintiff applied for disability and disability insurance benefits under the
Social Security Act. Plaintiff alleged that he had been unable to work since September 2006 due
to various physical impairments. Defendant initially denied Plaintiff's application, and Plaintiff

1

2013.

Carolyn W. Colvin became Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14,

requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). ALJ Elizabeth Koennecke
held a hearing on April 29, 2009, at which, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, appeared and
testified. See Administrative Record ("AR") at 25-54. On July 31, 2009, the ALJ issued a
written decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled as defined under the Social Security Act.
See id. at 7-15. The ALJ's decision became Defendant's final decision on October 2, 2009, when
the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. See id. at 103.
On October 26, 2009, Plaintiff timely filed this action, seeking judicial review of
Defendant's decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). See Dkt. No. 1.
Defendant interposed an answer on February 9, 2010. See Dkt. No. 8. Plaintiff filed a brief in
support of his complaint on June 30, 2010, see Dkt. No. 13; and Defendant filed a brief in
opposition on September 17, 2010, see Dkt. No. 16. Pursuant to General Order 18, Magistrate
Judge Bianchini proceeded as if both parties had accompanied their briefs with a motion for
judgment on the pleadings. See General Order 18.
On March 29, 2012, Magistrate Judge Bianchini issued a Report and Recommendation, in
which he recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings,
deny Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, reverse Defendant's decision and
remand the case to Defendant pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further
administrative proceedings consistent with his Report and Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 19 at
19. Defendant filed objections to those recommendations. See Dkt. No. 21. Plaintiff filed a
response to those objections. See Dkt. No. 22.
In reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court may
decide to accept, reject or modify the recommendations therein. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
-2-

court conducts a de novo review of the magistrate judge's recommendations to which a party
objects. See Pizzaro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). "'"If, however, the
party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments,
the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error."'" Salmini v. Astrue, No.
3:06-CV-458, 2009 WL 1794741, *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009) (quoting [Farid v. Bouey, 554 F.
Supp. 2d 301] at 306 [(N.D.N.Y. 2008)] (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp. 2d 672,
679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007))). Finally, even if the parties file no objections, the court must ensure that
the face of the record contains no clear error. See Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F.
Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quotation omitted).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Bianchini's recommendations de novo in light
of Defendant's objections. Having completed that review, the Court concludes that, for the
reasons that Magistrate Judge Bianchini stated, remand is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court
hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Bianchini's March 29, 2012 Report and
Recommendation is ACCEPTED in its entirety; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; and the
Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; and the
Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's decision denying benefits is REVERSED; and the Court
further
ORDERS that this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with
-3-

Magistrate Judge Bianchini's Report and Recommendation pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g); and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and close
this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2013
Syracuse, New York

-4-