Eagle v. Colvin

Filing 21

ORDER that pltf's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; The Commissioner's determination that pltf was not disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, is VACATED; The matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner, with a direct finding of disability and for the sole purpose of calculating benefits owing to the pltf for the period prior to February 8, 2011, and without a directed finding of disability and for further proceeding s consistent with the court's determination for the period from February 8, 2011 to November 15, 2011, date of the Commissioner's determination; and that the Clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon this determination, remanding the matter to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and closing this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 7/17/2014. (see)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JONATHAN S. EAGLE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No.
8:13-CV-636 (DEP)

CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

FOR PLAINTIFF
SCHNEIDER LAW FIRM
57 Court Street
Plattsburgh, New York 12901

MARK SCHNEIDER, ESQ.

FOR DEFENDANT
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN
United States Attorney for the
Northern District of New York
P.O. Box 7198
100 S. Clinton Street
Syracuse, NY 13261-7198

MONIKA K. CRAWFORD, ESQ.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

DAVID E. PEEBLES
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER
Currently pending before the court in this action, in which plaintiff
1

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 those motions on July 10, 2014, during a telephone conference held on
the record. At the close of argument I issued a bench decision in which,
after applying the requisite deferential review standard, I found that the
Commissioner=s determination did not result from the application of proper
legal principles and is not supported by substantial evidence, providing
further detail regarding my reasoning and addressing the specific issues
raised by the plaintiff in this appeal.
After due deliberation, and based upon the court=s oral bench
decision, a transcript of which is attached and incorporated herein by
reference, it is hereby
ORDERED, as follows:
1)

1

Plaintiff=s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.

This matter, which is before me on consent of the parties pursuant to 28
U.S.C. ' 636(c), 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.

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 VACATED.
3)

The matter is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner, with a

directed finding of disability and for the sole purpose of calculating benefits
owing to the plaintiff for the period prior to February 8, 2011, and without a
directed finding of disability and for further proceedings consistent with the
court's determination for the period from February 8, 2011 to November 15,
2011, date of the Commissioner's determination.
4)

The clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment, based upon

this determination, remanding the matter to the Commissioner pursuant to
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) and closing this case.

Dated:

July 17, 2014
Syracuse, NY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------x
JONATHAN EAGLE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

13-CV-636

CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------x
Decision rendered on July 10, 2014
James Hanley Federal Building, Syracuse, New York,
HONORABLE DAVID E. PEEBLES, United States
Magistrate-Judge, Presiding.
A P P E A R A N C E S (by telephone)
For Plaintiff:

MARK A. SCHNEIDER
Attorney at Law
57 Court Street
Plattsburgh, New York 12901

For Defendant:

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of General Counsel
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
BY: MONIKA CRAWFORD, ESQ.

Eileen McDonough, RPR, CRR
Official United States Court Reporter
P.O. Box 7367
Syracuse, New York 13261
[phone]

2

1
2

THE COURT:

Thank you.

I'll have to let that be

the last word.

3

I have a request under 42, United States Code, Section

4

405(g) for a judicial review of an adverse determination of

5

the Commissioner.

6

The plaintiff in this case was born in February of 1993.

7

Turned 18 in February 2011.

At the time of the hearing in

8

this matter, he was in eleventh grade in special education

9

classes.

He has an Individualized Educational Program, or

10

IEP, that has classified him as learning disabled.

11

appears at 273 of the Administrative Transcript.

12

The IEP

He has been placed in a structured environment with an

13

8:1:1 ratio, meaning for every eight students there is one

14

teacher and one aide present.

15

That is at 168.

He lives with his paternal grandmother.

He's never

16

worked.

He has had significant mental health treatment and a

17

variety of diagnoses over time.

18

inpatient treatment at Four Winds Psychiatric Hospital

19

between December of 2006 and January 2007, where he was

20

placed due to threats and suicidal thoughts.

21

pages 671 and 672 of the Administrative Transcript.

22

also placed in a residential setting at Mountain Lake

23

Children's Residence for troubled children between April of

24

2007 and June of 2009.

25

to his room in May of 2009.

His treatment has included

That appears at
He was

He was discharged after setting fire

3

1

He has received services at the Behavior Health Services

2

North since 2009.

3

time per week.

4

including attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder,

5

learning disability, conduct disorder, bipolar disorder.

6

takes Adderall, Abilify and Prozac.

7

He has been attending approximately one

There are various diagnoses in the record,

He

He has had, as the counsel for the plaintiff indicated,

8

many subpar, extremely subpar GAF assessments.

In February

9

of 2010 by a Nurse Practitioner Phillips at 40.

That's at

10

page 559 to 561.

11

assessed him at 40 GAF, at 672 of the record.

12

Center discharge summary in February of 2011 assessed him at

13

a 35.

14

at a 48 in April of 2011.

15

In June of 2011 Nurse Practitioner Mills

That's at page 650 to 651.

The Behavioral

Adult intake assessed him

That's at page 648.

He has a history of fecal and urinary soiling.

Although

16

the urinary soiling may have resolved, the evidence at least

17

suggests that the fecal soiling continues and it is

18

significant.

19

quasi-criminal acts and has been jailed for destruction of

20

property.

21

knife.

22

school bus, and with arson.

23

in May of 2011 by Dr. Brett Hartman.

24

record at 657, 658.

25

He has engaged in several criminal and

He has also threatened his grandmother with a

He was charged with trying to choke a student on a
He was consultatively examined
His report is in the

Procedurally, the plaintiff applied for Supplemental

4

1

Security Income, or SSI, benefits in March of 2010.

2

hearing was conducted beginning in April of 2011 and

3

continued to October 3, 2011 by Administrative Law Judge

4

Robert Wright.

5

decision on November 15, 2011, finding no disability either

6

during the period when the childhood standard would apply and

7

under the adult five-step test.

8

Administration Appeals Council denied review on May 2, 2013,

9

making the Commissioner's decision a final determination of

10
11

A

The Administrative Law Judge issued a

Social Security

the agency.
Applying the childhood test, as indicated previously,

12

the Administrative Law Judge went through the three-step

13

test.

14

limitation in caring for oneself and less than marked in

15

acquiring and using information, attending and completing

16

tasks, interacting and relating with others, and no

17

limitation in the domains of moving about and manipulating

18

objects and health and physical well being.

19

concluded no disability prior to age 18.

20

In the functional equivalence analysis found a marked

And therefore

At 18 and forward the Commissioner applied the five-step

21

test.

Determined that based on the record that the plaintiff

22

had the residual functional capacity of performing work at

23

all exertional levels with non-exertional limitations

24

specified at page 29 of the Administrative Transcript,

25

relying heavily upon Dr. Hartman's consultative report and

5

1

Nurse Practitioner Mills source statement, and found no

2

disability.

3

The scope of review of this Court is extremely

4

deferential.

My review is limited to determining whether

5

properly the principles were applied and substantial evidence

6

supports the Commissioner's determination.

7

evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a

8

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

9

conclusion.

Substantial

As counsel correctly pointed out, there must be

10

more than a mere scintilla of evidence scattered throughout

11

the Administrative Record.

12

record as a whole in order to weigh substantiality.

13

Rather, the Court must review the

As I indicated, there are obviously two separate periods

14

involved in two separate tests at play.

15

determination, once steps one and two are passed and there is

16

no medical equivalence of any of the listed determinations,

17

then the Commissioner determines whether there is functional

18

equivalence, examining six relevant domains as I just

19

previously recited for functional equivalence.

20

In the childhood

If there is a finding of an extreme limitation in one

21

domain, then there is functional equivalence and a finding of

22

disability is supported.

23

two or more of the list of domains, there is functional

24

equivalence.

25

regulations as interfering very seriously with the claimant's

If there is marked limitations in

Extreme limitation is defined by the

6

1

ability to independently initiate, sustain or complete

2

activities.

3

interferes seriously with the claimant's ability to

4

independently initiate, sustain or complete activities.

Marked limitation exists when an impairment

5

In my view the Commissioner's determination concerning

6

the domain of interacting and relating with others as being

7

less than marked is not supported by substantial evidence.

8

In my view the substantial evidence supports at least a

9

marked limitation in this area, if not an extreme limitation.

10

The record reflects and the IEP from the plaintiff's

11

school reflects that he has significant outbursts and they

12

can become physical.

13

record.

14

serious limitations in at least some of the areas, sub-areas

15

of this domain.

16

That's at page 343 and 321 of the

Nurse Abar considers the plaintiff to have various

That's at page 217.

According to the school records, the plaintiff has a

17

special timeout room that he uses when he needs to

18

decompress.

19

He testified to 25.

20

the regulations is one indicia of a limitation in this area.

21

He has made threats to his grandmother.

22

others.

23

cutting.

24
25

He has a large number of in-school suspensions.
He has all younger friends, which under

He has assaulted

He has engaged in self-injurious behavior, including

I'm on to the next domain.

I believe the record also

reflects that he has a marked disability in caring for

7

1

himself, as the Commissioner found, and I find that to be

2

supported.

3

Abar believes he has a serious problem in this area.

4

at page 219.

5

Dr. Hedden at pages 562 to 565.

6

Practitioner Phillips at 608.

He engages in self-injurious behavior.

Nurse
That's

He soils himself regularly, as indicated by
Dr. Patnode at 474.

Nurse

7

I think it could be argued that he also has a marked

8

limitation in the area of acquiring and using information

9

given his significant learning impairment that is even

10

recognized by Dr. Hartman at page 658.

11

learning disabled and he has ADHD.

12

structured environment; 8:1:1.

13

of significant limitation in this domain at page 215.

14

the Commissioner really, including Jerry Ross at 193 to 197,

15

really did not take fully into account that plaintiff was

16

operating in a structured environment, which would not be the

17

case in a workplace.

18

He is classified as

He is in a very

Nurse Abar supports a finding

Clearly the plaintiff has anger issues.

And

Nurse

19

Practitioner Mills on July 27, 2010 points out that he went

20

to the ER, he punched the door, doesn't want to live.

21

at page 589.

Nurse Practitioner Dove also noted anger issues

22

at page 601.

There was the bus choking incident which

23

occurred in November of 2010 when he tried to choke another

24

student and the police had to be called.

25

to 358.

That's

That's at pages 357

8

1

In my view if he does not have an extreme limitation in

2

interacting and relating to others, it is clearly marked, and

3

when that is added to the ALJ's finding that he has a marked

4

limitation in caring for himself, a finding of disability is

5

warranted prior to turning 18.

6

counsel that there is compelling evidence of disability.

7

the Commissioner notes, if there is such overwhelming and

8

compelling evidence, then remand for further consideration is

9

not warranted.

And I agree with plaintiff's
As

Where persuasive proof of disability in the

10

record and further development of the record would serve no

11

useful purpose, the matter should be remanded with a directed

12

finding of disability for a calculation of benefits.

13

That's what I intend to do with regard to the childhood

14

period.

15

disability.

16

have, but did not, engage in much analysis with regard to

17

whether or not plaintiff meets the listed presumptively

18

disabling conditions set out in the Commissioner's

19

Regulations, including 12.04.

20

explored on remand.

21

I have a different analysis with regard to the adult
It's clear to me that the Commissioner should

I think that that should be

It's clear to me that the RFC determination, on which

22

the vocational expert's opinion giving rise to the finding of

23

no disability hinges, is flawed.

24

consideration plaintiff's soiling.

25

consideration his significant inability to be around and work

It did not take into
It did not take into

9

1

with others and interact with others.

And it failed to take

2

into consideration or at least discuss his extremely low GAF

3

scores.

4

While I agree with the Commissioner's Council that that

5

alone does not translate and correlate directly to workplace

6

limitations, it's a factor that should be discussed in a

7

Commissioner's decision so that the Court can meaningfully

8

make judicial review, and know that those GAF scores were at

9

least taken into consideration.

10

So I also find that the credibility analysis is flawed,

11

and that the Commissioner did not adequately discuss why the

12

plaintiff's testimony, which is fully consistent as far as I

13

can see with the records in the evidence, was discounted.

14

But I am unable to say that there is persuasive proof of

15

disability.

16

needed for the adult period of disability.

17

that period I will remand without a directed finding of

18

disability for further consideration by the agency.

19

I think that a more full and robust analysis is
So with regard to

I will, therefore, grant judgment on the pleadings to

20

the plaintiff, accordingly.

21

within the next day or two incorporating by reference my

22

verbal decision.

23
24
25

And you'll have a decision

Thank you both for excellent presentations.
case.
MR. SCHNEIDER:

Thank you, Your Honor.

Interesting

10

1

MS. CRAWFORD:

2

THE COURT:

3

*

Thank you, Your Honor.

Thank you.
*

*

4
5
6
7

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

8
9

I, EILEEN MCDONOUGH, RPR, CRR, Federal Official

10

Realtime Court Reporter, in and for the United States

11

District Court for the Northern District of New York,

12

do hereby certify that pursuant to Section 753, Title 28,

13

United States Code, that the foregoing is a true and correct

14

transcript of the stenographically reported proceedings held

15

in the above-entitled matter and that the transcript page

16

format is in conformance with the regulations of the

17

Judicial Conference of the United States.

18
19
20
21

________________________________

22

EILEEN MCDONOUGH, RPR, CRR
Federal Official Court Reporter

23
24
25