Bush v. Colvin
Filing
14
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 13 Report and Recommendations: The Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Baxter's December 8, 2014 Report-Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 12) is DENIED; and the Court furtherORDERS that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 1/15/15. (ban)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
DANIELLE MARIE BUSH,
Plaintiff,
vs.
5:13-CV-994
(MAD/ATB)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL
NEW YORK
472 South Salina Street, Suite 300
Syracuse, New York 13202
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CHRISTOPHER CADIN, ESQ.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of General Counsel
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
Attorneys for Defendant
SERGEI ADEN, ESQ.
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
Plaintiff Danielle Marie Bush brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and
1383(c), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's ("Commissioner")
decision to deny her application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under the Social
Security Act. Presently before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings. See Dkt. Nos. 10, 12. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Andrew T. Baxter for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Rule 72.3(d), familiarity with which is assumed.
Plaintiff protectively filed an application for DIB benefits on September 28, 2010, alleging
a disability onset date of September 28, 2009. See Dkt. No. 13 at 1. On January 5, 2011,
Plaintiff's application was initially denied, and upon Plaintiff's request, a hearing was held on
December 8, 2011. Dkt. No. 10 at 6. On December 21, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") issued a decision denying Plaintiff's claim for benefits, finding that Plaintiff was not
disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act (the "Act"). Id. Plaintiff timely filed a
request for a review of the ALJ's unfavorable hearing decision. Id. The Appeals Council denied
review by letter dated June 28, 2013, thereby making the ALJ's decision the final determination of
the Commissioner. Id. On August 16, 2013, Plaintiff commenced this action seeking judicial
review of the Commissioner's unfavorable decision. See Dkt. No. 1.
In his December 8, 2014 Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Baxter found that the
ALJ misconstrued the applicable legal standards in finding that Plaintiff's fibromyalgia was not a
severe impairment and that this determination was not supported by substantial evidence; erred by
assigning reduced weight to treating physician Dr. Hurley's opinions based on improper factors
and without considering the opinion's consistency with medical evidence in the record; and failed
to specify adequately the extent to which he considered relevant evidence in assessing Plaintiff's
credibility. See Dkt. No. 13 at 11-13, 17-26. Magistrate Judge Baxter therefore recommended
that the Court vacate the Commissioner's decision and that the matter be remanded to the
Commissioner for further proceedings. See id. at 29-30. Neither party objected to Magistrate
Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation.
In reviewing a final decision by the Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 405, the Court does
not determine de novo whether a plaintiff is disabled. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g); Wagner v. Sec'y
of Health & Human Servs., 906 F.2d 856, 860 (2d Cir. 1990). Rather, the Court must examine the
2
Administrative Transcript to ascertain whether the correct legal standards were applied and
whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131
(2d Cir. 2000); Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 500-01 (2d Cir. 1998). "Substantial evidence" is
evidence that amounts to "more than a mere scintilla," and it has been defined as "such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). If supported
by substantial evidence, the Commissioner's finding must be sustained "even where substantial
evidence may support the plaintiff's position and despite that the court's independent analysis of
the evidence may differ from the [Commissioner's]." Rosado v. Sullivan, 805 F. Supp. 147, 153
(S.D.N.Y. 1992). In other words, this Court must afford the Commissioner's determination
considerable deference, and "may not substitute its own judgment for that of the [Commissioner],
even if it might justifiably have reached a different result upon a de novo review." Valente v.
Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 733 F.2d 1037, 1041 (2d Cir. 1984).
In reviewing a report and recommendation, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). When a party makes specific objections to a magistrate judge's report, the district
court engages in de novo review of the issues raised in the objections. See Farid v. Bouey, 554 F.
Supp. 2d 301, 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (citation omitted). When a party fails to make specific
objections, the court reviews the magistrate judge's report for clear error. See id.; see also
Gamble v. Barnhart, No. 02CV1126, 2004 WL 2725126, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2004) (citations
omitted). Failure to object timely to any portion of a magistrate judge's report operates as a
waiver of further judicial review of those matters. See Roldan v. Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir.
1993) (quoting Small v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)).
3
Having carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation, the
parties' submissions, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Baxter
correctly determined that the ALJ improperly discounted the treating physician's opinions without
sufficient explanation and failed to explain properly his consideration of relevant evidence in
evaluating Plaintiff's credibility, thereby undermining the ALJ's residual functional capacity
finding and determination of no disability. As such, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Baxter
correctly determined that the decision of the Commissioner should be vacated and the matter be
remanded.
Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Baxter's December 8, 2014 Report-Recommendation is
ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 10) is
GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 12) is
DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is VACATED and
this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with
Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2015
Albany, New York
4
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?