Herbert v. Astrue

Filing 18

ORDER: It is ordered that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, the Commissioner's determination that plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Ac t is AFFIRMED and the # 1 Complaint filed by Rosalind Herbert is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety. The Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks on 2/19/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Excerpt Transcript regarding Decision of Hearing held on 2/12/2013) (jmb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
______________________________________________
ROSALIND HERBERT,
Plaintiff,
v.

5:11-CV-1107
(TWD)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
______________________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

PETER ANTONOWICZ, ESQ.
148 West Dominick Street
Rome, NY 13440
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney
100 S. Clinton St.
PO Box 7198
Syracuse, NY 13261-7198

KATRINA M. LEDERER, ESQ.
Special Assistant

THÉRÈSE WILEY DANCKS, United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
Presently 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

1

This matter 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.

those motions on February 12, 2013 during a telephone conference at which a court reporter was
present. At the close of argument I issued a bench decision in which, after applying the requisite
deferential review standard, I found the Commissioner’s determination resulted from the application
of proper legal principles and was supported by substantial evidence, and I provided further detail
regarding my reasoning and addressing the specific issues raised by the Plaintiff in his appeal.
After due deliberation, and based up the Court’s oral bench decision, which has been
transcribed, is attached to this Order and is incorporated in its entirety by reference herein, it is
hereby,
ORDERED, as follows:
(1)

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED;

(2)

The Commissioner’s determination that plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant
times, and thus is not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, is
AFFIRMED; and

(3)

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, based upon this determination, dismissing
Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 19, 2013
Syracuse, New York

2