Ingianni v. Astrue
Filing
15
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 14 Report and Recommendations: The Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Baxter's January 7, 2014 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; the Court further ORDERS that the decision denying disability benefits is AFFIRMED; the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadin gs is GRANTED; the Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Defendant's favor and close this case. Signed by U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino on 3/24/2014. (ban)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
NICHOLAS INGIANNI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
8:13-CV-13
(MAD/ATB)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Defendant.
______________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
OFFICE OF MARK A. SCHNEIDER
57 Court Street
Plattsburgh, New York 12901
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MARK A. SCHNEIDER, ESQ.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of Regional General Counsel
Region II
26 Federal Plaza - Room 3904
New York, New York 10278
KATRINA M. LEDERER, ESQ.
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c) seeking judicial
review of the Commissioner's denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("DIB")
and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under the Social Security Act. Before the Court are
the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. See Dkt. Nos. 12, 13. 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).
On April 23, 2010, Plaintiff filed an application for DIB and SSI benefits, alleging a
disability beginning on June 30, 2008. See Dkt. No. 8, Administrative Transcript ("T."), at 206-
09, 210-14. The application was initially denied, and Plaintiff requested a hearing, which was
held on March 29, 2011. T. 91-92, 26-53. On May 11, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ") issued a decision denying Plaintiff's applications for benefits. T. 96-106. Plaintiff
appealed the ALJ's decision and, on July 25, 2011, the Appeals Council reversed the ALJ's
decision and remanded the case to the ALJ for a new hearing. T. 112-14. On November 11,
2011, the ALJ held a new hearing and on January 4, 2012, issued a new decision, again denying
Plaintiff's benefits. T. 54-90, 9-23. The ALJ's decision became a final determination of the
agency when the Social Security Administration Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for
review of that decision. T. 1-6.
Plaintiff commenced this action on January 4, 2013. See Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff alleges that
(1) the ALJ violated the remand order by not fully evaluating the limitations of Plaintiff's extreme
obesity; (2) the ALJ violated the remand order by not accurately including the limitations caused
by Plaintiff's mental illness and headaches in her Residual Functional Capacity ("RFC")
determination; (3) the ALJ erred by discrediting Plaintiff's testimony; and (4) the ALJ failed to
give appropriate weight to treating sources. See Dkt. No. 12 at 2.
In a Report and Recommendation dated January 7, 2014, Magistrate Judge Andrew T.
Baxter concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ's determination that
Plaintiff's obesity would not have more than a minimal impact upon his work-related functions,
and that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's obesity in combination with his other
impairments. See Dkt. No. 14 at 10-14. Magistrate Judge Baxter also concluded that "[t]he ALJ
gave appropriate weight to Plaintiff's treating sources and properly assessed the limitations caused
by Plaintiff's mental illness as ordered by the Appeals Council." Id. at 24. Further, Magistrate
Judge Baxter concluded that the ALJ's finding that "[P]laintiff's complaints of pain and other
2
symptoms were only credible to the extent that they were consistent with the stated RFC [ ] was
supported by substantial evidence." Id. at 24-25. Magistrate Judge Baxter ultimately found that
the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence and recommended that
Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Neither party objected to Magistrate Judge
Baxter's Report and Recommendation.
When reviewing the Commissioner's final decision, the court must determine whether the
Commissioner applied the correct legal standards and whether there is substantial evidence to
support the decision. See Urtz v. Callahan, 965 F. Supp. 324, 326 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing
Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 985 (2d Cir. 1987)). The Commissioner is ultimately
responsible for determining a claimant's eligibility; however, an Administrative Law Judge makes
the actual disability determination. The decision of the ALJ is subject to judicial review on
appeal. A court may not affirm an ALJ's decision if it reasonably doubts that the ALJ applied the
proper legal standards, even if it appears that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial
evidence. See Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 986 (2d Cir. 1987). The ALJ must set forth the
crucial factors justifying his findings with sufficient specificity to allow a court to determine
whether substantial evidence supports the decision. See Ferraris v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 582, 587
(2d Cir. 1984) (citation omitted).
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).
Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report and Recommendation, the parties'
3
submissions, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Baxter correctly
determined that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed.
Accordingly the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Baxter's January 7, 2014 Report and Recommendation is
ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that the decision denying benefits is AFFIRMED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; and the Court
further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; and the
Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Defendant's favor 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: March 24, 2014
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?