Suttles v. Colvin
Filing
19
DECISION AND ORDER accepting and adopting # 16 Magistrate Judge Carter's Report and Recommendation in ite entirety; the Commissioner's determination is affirmed, and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 11/19/15. (lmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
DOREEN SUTTLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
8:14-CV-0581
(GTS/WBC)
CAROLYN COLVIN
Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
OFFICE OF MARK A. SCHNEIDER
Counsel for Plaintiff
57 Court Street
Plattsburgh, NY 12901
MARK A. SCHNEIDER, ESQ.
U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN.
HEETANO SHAMSOONDAR ESQ.
OFFICE OF REG’L GEN. COUNSEL – REGION II
Counsel for Defendant
26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904
New York, NY 10278
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this Social Security action filed by Doreen Suttles
(“Plaintiff”) against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “the Commissioner”)
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), is the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge William B. Mitchell Carter, filed on October 27, 2015, recommending
that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and that Defendant’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings be granted. (Dkt. No. 16.) For the reasons set forth below, the Report
and Recommendation is accepted and adopted.
I.
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
Generally, Plaintiff makes five arguments in objection to Magistrate Judge Carter’s
Report and Recommendation. First, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Carter’s
recommendation that the ALJ properly weighed the medical opinion evidence of record should
be rejected because the ALJ afforded too much weight to the opinions of the consultative
examiners and not enough weight to the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating pulmonologist, in violation
of the treating physician rule. (Dkt. 17 at 1, 3.) Second, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge
Carter’s recommendation that the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility should be
rejected because (1) the ALJ did not adequately explain how Plaintiff was not a credible witness,
(2) the ALJ relied on the improper basis that Plaintiff did not stop smoking to discredit her
testimony, (3) no treating source opined that Plaintiff exaggerated or was dishonest about her
symptoms or impairments, and (4) Plaintiff’s testimony was consistent with the records. (Id. at 1,
3-4.)
Third, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Carter’s recommendation that the ALJ
properly determined that Plaintiff is not disabled as a result of her combined impairments should
be rejected because (1) the great weight of the evidence indicates that Plaintiff is unable to
perform any work on a full-time, sustained basis, (2) the ALJ failed to develop the record by not
ruling out Plaintiff’s learning disorder identified by Dr. Hartman, and (3) the Report and
Recommendation erred in its application of the substantial evidence test because the record was
incomplete. (Id.) Fourth, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Carter’s recommendation that
the Appeals Council properly found that Dr. Liotta’s evaluation did not provide a basis for
changing the ALJ’s decision should be rejected because the intelligence quotient (IQ) test
2
performed by Dr. Liotta was new and material evidence concerning Plaintiff’s borderline
intellectual functioning. (Id.) Fifth, and finally, Plaintiff argues that Magistrate Judge Carter’s
step five recommendation should be rejected because the Commissioner did not meet her burden
to prove that Plaintiff could perform other work in the national economy. (Id. at 1.)
II.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS
Generally, Defendant makes six arguments in her response. First, Defendant argues that
Plaintiff’s objections repeat arguments from her initial brief and that Magistrate Judge Carter’s
Report and Recommendation should be adopted because it is well reasoned and contains no clear
errors. (Dkt. No. 18 at 3-4.) Second, Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge Carter’s
recommendation that the ALJ properly assessed the medical opinion evidence should be
accepted. (Id. at 4-5.) Third, Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge Carter’s recommendation
that the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility should be accepted. (Id. at 5.) Fourth,
Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge Carter’s recommendation that the ALJ’s RFC
determination is supported by substantial evidence should be accepted. (Id. at 5-6.) Fifth,
Defendant argues that Magistrate Judge Carter’s recommendation that the Appeals Council
properly found that Dr. Liotta’s evaluation did not provide a basis for changing the ALJ’s
decision should be accepted. (Id. at 6.) Sixth, and finally, Defendant argues that Magistrate
Judge Carter’s recommendation that the ALJ’s step five finding is supported by substantial
evidence should be accepted. (Id. at 6-7.)
III.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation “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). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge’s Report
3
and Recommendation, but they must be “specific written objections,” and must be submitted
“[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2); accord, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] . . . to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); accord, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “Where, however, an
objecting party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original
arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error.” Caldwell v.
Crosset, 9-CV-0576, 2010 WL 2346330, at * 1 (N.D.N.Y. June 9, 2010) (quoting Farid v. Bouey,
554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 307 [N.D.N.Y. 2008]) (internal quotation marks omitted).
IV.
ANALYSIS
The Court agrees with Defendant and finds that Plaintiff’s objections simply reiterate her
arguments presented in her initial brief. (Compare Dkt. No. 11 with Dkt. No. 17.) Therefore the
Court reviews the portions of Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation addressed
in Plaintiff’s objections for clear error only. After carefully reviewing the relevant filings in this
action, including Magistrate Judge Carter’s thorough Report and Recommendation, the Court can
find no clear error in the Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Carter employed the
proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt.
No. 16.) As a result, the Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, and
Defendant’s decision is affirmed.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carter’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s determination is AFFIRMED; and it is further
4
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
Dated: November 19, 2015
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby
Chief, U.S. District Judge
5
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?