Cooke v. Berryhill

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED and that the Commissioner's decision is AFFIRMED and the complaint is DISMISSED. Clerk shall enter judgment and close case.. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 2/13/2019. (Copy served on Pltf via regular mail)(bjw, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
JAMES W. COOKE,
Plaintiff,
v.

3:17-CV-1368
(FJS)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
_______________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

JAMES W. COOKE
151 Grant House Road
Richford, New York 13835
Plaintiff pro se
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF REGIONAL
GENERAL COUNSEL – REGION II
26 Federal Plaza – Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
Attorneys for Defendant

JAMES DESIR, ESQ.

SCULLIN, Senior Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
James W. Cooke (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Act”), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (the “Commissioner”), denying his application for benefits. See generally Dkt.
-1-

Nos. 1, 12. Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. Nos. 12, 13.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Plaintiff applied for benefits on September 19, 2014, alleging disability as of March 15,
2014. See Dkt. No. 9, Administrative Record (“AR”), at 14. 1 The Social Security
Administration denied Plaintiff’s application on December 4, 2014. See id. In response,
Plaintiff filed a timely request for a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). See
id. at 143. A video hearing was held on December 1, 2016, with ALJ Gretchen Greisler
presiding in Syracuse and Plaintiff appeared in Binghamton. See id. at 14. Plaintiff and Josiah
Pearson, a vocational expert, testified. See id. Attorney Nixon represented Plaintiff at the
hearing. See id.
On January 31, 2017, the ALJ issued a written decision in which she made the following
findings “[a]fter careful consideration of the entire record . . .”
1) “[Plaintiff] last met the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act
on December 31, 2014.”
2) “[Plaintiff] did not engage in substantial gainful activity during the period from
his alleged onset date of March 15, 2014 through his date last insured of
December 31, 2014 (20 CFR 404.1571 et seq.).”
3) “Through the date last insured, [Plaintiff] had the following severe impairment:
irritable bowel syndrome (20 CFR 404.1520(c)).”
4) “Through the date last insured, [Plaintiff] did not have an impairment or
combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the severity of one

All references to page numbers in the Administrative Record are to the Bates Stamp number at
the bottom of those pages. All references to page numbers in other documents in the record are
to the page numbers that the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System generates.
1

-2-

of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR
404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526).”
5) “After careful consideration of the entire record, I find that, through the date
last insured, [Plaintiff] had the residual functional capacity to perform light
work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) but must have access to a restroom
within 5 minutes travel time from the work station. He requires one extra
restroom break of 10 minutes a day outside of the normal morning, afternoon,
and lunch breaks.”
6) “Through the date last insured, [Plaintiff] was unable to perform any past
relevant work (20 CFR 404.1565).”
7) “[Plaintiff] was born on March 20, 1961 and was 53 years old, which is defined
as an individual closely approaching advanced age, on the date last insured (20
CFR 404.1563).”
8) “[Plaintiff] has at least a high school education and is able to communicate in
English (20 CFR 404.1564).”
9) “Transferability of job skills is not material to the determination of disability
because using the Medical-Vocational Rules as a framework supports a finding
that [Plaintiff] is ‘not disabled,’ whether or not [Plaintiff] has transferable job
skills (See SSR 82-41 and 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2).”
10) “Through the date last insured, considering [Plaintiff’s] age, education, work
experience, and residual functioning capacity, there were jobs that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that [Plaintiff] could have
performed (20 CFR 404.1569 and 404.1569(a)).”
11) “[Plaintiff] was not under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, at
any time from March 15, 2014, the alleged onset date, through December 31,
2014, the date last insured (20 CFR 404.1520(g)).”
See AR at 17-23 (citations omitted).
The ALJ’s decision became the Commissioner’s final decision on August 17, 2017, when
the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff’s request for review.
See AR at 4-7. Plaintiff then commenced this action on December 20, 2017, and filed a
supporting brief on July 12, 2018. See Dkt Nos. 1, 12. Defendant filed a response brief on
August 27, 2018. See Dkt. No. 13.

-3-

III. DISCUSSION
Absent legal error, a court will uphold the Commissioner’s final determination if there is
substantial evidence to support it. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Supreme Court has defined
substantial evidence to mean “‘more than a mere scintilla’” of evidence and “‘such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Richardson
v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quotation omitted). To be eligible for benefits, a claimant
must show that he suffers from a disability within the meaning of the Act. The Act defines
“disability” as an inability “to engage in any substantial gainful activity [(“SGA”)] by reason of
any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in
death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than
twelve months.” 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(A). To determine if a claimant has sustained a
disability within the meaning of the Act, the ALJ follows a five-step process:
1) The ALJ first determines whether the claimant is currently engaged in SGA.
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.920(b), 416.972. If so, the claimant is not
disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(b).
2) If the claimant is not currently engaged in SGA, the ALJ determines if the
claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments. See
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(c). If not, the claimant is not disabled. See id.
3) If the claimant has a severe impairment, the ALJ determines if the
impairment meets or equals an impairment found in the appendix to
the regulations (the “Listings”). If so, the claimant is disabled. See
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(d).
4) If the impairment does not meet the requirements of the Listings,
the ALJ determines if the claimant can do his past relevant work. See
20 C.F.R. § 416.920(e), (f). If so, he is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.920(f).
5) If the claimant cannot perform his past relevant work, the ALJ
determines if he can perform other work, in light of his residual functional
capacity (“RFC”), age, education, and experience. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(f),
(g). If so, then he is not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920(g). A claimant is
-4-

only entitled to receive benefits if he cannot perform any
alternative gainful activity. See id.
For this test, the burden of proof is on the claimant for the first four steps and on the
Commissioner for the fifth step, if the analysis proceeds that far. See Balsamo v. Chater, 142
F.3d 75, 80 (2d Cir. 1998) (quotation and other citations omitted).
Plaintiff’s “brief” in support of his motion consists of a list of mental and physical
conditions that he allegedly suffered from at the time of his employment and continues to suffer
from today. Although Plaintiff fails to identify any alleged error that the ALJ made, the Court
will assume that, by filing this action, Plaintiff claims that the ALJ’s decision that he was not
disabled was not supported by substantial evidence.
In her brief, the Commissioner, after an extensive and thorough review and discussion of
the evidence in the record, argues that the ALJ’s determination was supported by substantial
evidence and was based on the application of the correct legal standards and that, therefore, the
Court should affirm that decision. See, generally, Dkt. No. 13, Defendant’s Brief.
Although, as noted, Plaintiff did not identify any alleged errors in the ALJ’s decision, the
Court, nonetheless, has the responsibility to review the record and determine whether the ALJ’s
decision was properly supported. See Corbiere v. Berryhill, No. 18-451, ___F. App’x ___, 2019
WL 318436 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2019). Having done so, the Court agrees with Defendant and
concludes, based on its own review of the entire administrative record, including the ALJ’s very
thorough analysis of the record and her explanations for her findings and ultimate conclusion,
that her determination that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Act was
supported by substantial evidence.

-5-

IV. CONCLUSION
Having reviewed the entire record in this matter, the parties’ submissions and the
applicable law, and for the above-stated reasons, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, see Dkt. No. 12, is
DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, see Dkt. No. 13, is
GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED and Plaintiff’s Complaint is
DISMISSED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and
close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 13, 2019
Syracuse, New York

-6-