Thompson v. Astrue
Filing
28
OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons articulated in the Report, the Court denies Thompson's motion and grants the Commissioner's cross-motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 12 and 18, and to close this case. re: 12 MOTION Reverse and Remand Defendant's Decision filed by Vantroy Thompson, 18 CROSS MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Michael J. Astrue. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 12/29/2014) (rjm)
TJSI}{'SDNY
DOCUNîI]NT
T'LECTRONICALLY FILED
LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEV/ YORK
DOC #:
X
lzot+
DATE FII-ED:
VANTROY THOMPSON,
12 Civ.7024 (PAE) (HBP)
Plaintiff,
-v-
OPINION & ORDER
CAROLYN V/. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner
Social Security,
of
Defendant.
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
Plaintiff Vantroy Thompson brings this action pursuant to
$
205(9) of the Social Security
Act,42 U.S.C. $ 405(9), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (the "Commissioner"), which denied Thompson's application for supplemental
security income ("SSI") benefits. Thompson moved for an order remanding this action to the
Commission, and the Commissioner cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
l2(c). Before the Court is the July 7,2014 Report
and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman, recommending that the Court deny
Thompson's motion and grant the Commissioner's motion. DkL22 (the "Report"). For the
following reasons, the Court adopts the Report in full, finding it thorough and persuasive.
I.
Backgroundl
Thompson, who is now 56 years old, claims that he became disabled on October 2,2005
due to post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and depression. He briefly worked as a
I The Court's summary of the facts of this case is drawn from the detailed account of the facts
provided in the Report. Thompson does not object to the Report's recitation of the facts, and the
Court therefore adopts thatrecitation in full.
porter at an apartment building from July through October 2008, but he left that position because
it required him to interact with other people.
On December 5, 2008, Thompson filed an application for SSI benefits. After the Social
Security Administration denied his application on March 18,2009, he requested and was granted
a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). On June 29,2010, Thompson testified
at ahearing before ALJ Mark Solomon.
On August 20,2010,the ALJ issued a decision concluding that Thompson was not
disabled within the meaning of the Social Security
assignedoosome
Act. In reaching that conclusion, the ALJ
weight" to, but also discounted, the opinion of one of Thompson's treating
physicians, and declined to contact her before discounting her opinion. The Appeals Council
denied Thompson's request for review of the ALJ's decision, making the ALJ's decision the
Commissioner's final decision.
On September 18, 2012, Thompson commenced this action. See Dkt. 2 ("Complaint").
The Complaint asserts that the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and
was predicated on multiple legal errors.
Id. On September 20,2012,
the Court referred this case
to Judge Pitman. Dkt, 6. On January 18, 2013, the Commissioner answered. Dkt. 9.
On March 27,2013, Thompson filed a motion to reverse and remand the Commissioner's
decision, Dkt.12, along with a supporting memorandum of law, Dkt. 13 ("Thompson
Br."), On
September 13,2013, the Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt.
18, and a supporting memorandum of law,
Dkt. 19 ("Comm'r Br."). On Octobet 4,2013,
Thompson filed a reply to the Commissioner's cross-motion. Dkt. 21.
On July 7 ,2074, Judge Pitman issued the Report, recommending that the Court deny
Thompson's motion to remand and grant the Commissioner's cross-motion for judgment on the
2
pleadings. Dl
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?