Cahill v. Astrue

Filing 22

OPINION & ORDER: re: 18 CROSS MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. filed by Michael J. Astrue, 9 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. filed by John Joseph Cahill. For the reasons articulated in the Report, the Court grants Cahill's motion for judgment on the pleadings in part, denies the Commissioner's cross-motion, and remands the case to the Commission for further development of the record and reconsideration of Cahill's application for disability benefits. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 9 and 18, and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 12/29/2014) (djc) Modified on 12/29/2014 (djc).

USD': SDNY
DOCUI\{ENT

LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEV/ YORK

EI-ECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:

DATtr FII,ED:

12

Eq IøT+

JOHN JOSEPH CAHILL,
12 Civ,9445 (PAE) (MHD)

Plaintiff,
-v-

OPINION & ORDER
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner

of

Social Security,
Defendant.

X
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
Plaintiff John Joseph Cahill brings this action pursuant to $ 205(9) of the Social Security
Act,42 U.S.C. $ 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (the "Commissioner"), which denied Cahill's application for disability benefits
under Title II of the Social Security

Act. Both sides have moved for judgment

on the pleadings

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Before the Court is the Octobet 30,2014
Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger, recommending that the

Court grant Cahill's motion in part, deny the Commissioner's motion, and remand the case to the
Social Security Administration ("SSA") for further proceedings. Dkt.

2l

(the "Report"). For the

following reasons, the Court adopts the Report in full'

I.

Backgroundl
Cahill, who is now in his mid-60s, worked as a truck driver and on loading docks from

June 1989 until December 2009, when he incurred a spinal injury on the

job.

He performed light

I The Court's summary of the facts of this case is drawn from the detailed account of the facts
provided in the Report, to which neither party objects.

desk work for the same employer for approximately one year, but he became unable to perform

that light work due to back pain, and, as a result, he was terminated in December 2010.
On December 16, 2010, Cahill filed an application for disability benefìts, alleging that he
had been disabled since December 8, 2010. After the Social Security Administration denied

Cahill's application for benefits on February 17,2011, he timely requested and was granted a
hearing before an Administrative Law Judge

("ALJ"). On April 12,2012, Cahill testified

at a

hearing before ALJ Roberto Lebron.
On June 28,2072,the ALJ issued a decision concluding that Cahill suffers from a

condition related to his spinal injury and from high blood pressure but is not disabled within the
meaning of the Social Security
a

Act. He also determined that Cahill, although unable to work

as

o'medium work." In reaching these conclusions, the ALJ
truck driver, is able to perform

significantly discounted the reports of Cahill's treating physicians and assigned greater weight to
the opinion of one of the consulting physicians. He also found that Cahill's testimony lacked

credibility. The Appeals Council denied Cahill's request for review of the ALJ's decision,
making the ALJ's decision the Commissioner's final decision.
On December 28, 2072, Cahill commenced this action. See Dkt. 1 ("Complaint"). The

Complaint asserts that the ALJ's decision was erroneous, unsupported by the medical evidence
and testimony presented before and during the hearing, and contrary to governing
June 4,

20l3,the Commissioner answered. Dkt.

law. Id. On

5.

On June 6,2013,the Court referred this case to Judge Dolinger. Dkt.

7. On July 17,

2013, Cahill filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. 9, along with a memorandum

of

law, Dkt. 10. On December l8,20l3,the Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on
the pleadings, Dkt. 18, and a supporting memorandum of law, Dkt. 19.

2

On October 30,2014, Judge Dolinger issued his Report and Recommendation on the

parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. Judge Dolinger concluded that the ALJ
erred by, inter alia, failing to acquire complete evidence, incorrectly applying the treating-

physician rule, improperly evaluating Cahill's credibility, and making an unsupported residual
functional capacity ("RFC") determination. Judge Dolinger also found that the Appeals Council
erred by disregarding ne\,v and material evidence that emerged after the ALJ had made his

determination. Judge Dolinger therefore recommended that the Court remand the case to the
Commission to develop the record and reconsider whether Cahill qualifies for disability benefits.
The Report stated that the parties were required to file any objections within 14 days

of

the date of the Report's issuance. Søe Report a|90. To date, the Court has not received any
objections.

il.

Discussion
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court

oomay

accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28
U.S.C. $ 636(bX1)(C). "To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has
been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record." Ruiz v. Citibank,l[1., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (KPF) (RLE), 2014WL 4635575, at*2
($.D.N.Y. Aug, 19, 2014) (quoting Kingv, Greiner,No.02 Civ. 5810 (DLC) (AJP),2009 WL
2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009)); see also, e.g., Mims v. Walsh,No. 04 Civ. 6133 (BSJ)

(FM), 2012WL6699070,at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23,2012) (quoting Edwardsv. Fischer,4l4F.
Supp. 2d 342, 34647 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)).
Careful review of Judge Dolinger's thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no clear

error. On the contrary, the Court agrees with the Report's conclusions that evidentiary gaps exist

J

in the record, and that the ALJ committed a number of legal and factual erors. On remand, the
Commissioner is directed, consistent with Judge Dolinger's Report, to: (1) acquire complete
treatment records; (2) clarify the treating physicians' reports where necessary to resolve any
ambiguities, inconsistencies, or omissions; (3) properly evaluate Cahill's credibility; (4) reassess

Cahill's RFC, consistent with the evidence

as

to all relevant factors; (5) appropriately determine

whether the Grids are applicable; and (6) consider the new evidence Cahill has provided. The
Report, which is incorporated by reference herein, is therefore adopted without modification.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated in the Report, the Court grants Cahill's motion for judgment
on the pleadings in part, denies the Commissioner's cross-motion, and remands the case to the

Commission for further development of the record and reconsideration of Cahill's application for
disability benefits. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket
numbers 9 and 18, and to close this case.

SO ORDERED.

PnI Å,
Paul A. Engelmayer
United States District

Dated: December 29, 2014
New York, New York

4