Hoyt v. Colvin

Filing 29

ORDER adopting 28 Report and Recommendations, 18 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Shevonda Hoyt, 24 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Carolyn W. Colvin. The Court adopts the R&R in full. Accordingly, Plaintiff 's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 18) is DENIED and Defendant's Cross Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 24) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close docket entries 18 and 24 and to enter judgment and terminate the case. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 7/6/2016) (mro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------X
:
SHEVONDA HOYT,
:
:
Plaintiff, :
:
-against:
:
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
:
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
:
:
Defendant. :
:
----------------------------------------------------------- X

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 7/6/2016

15-CV-95(VEC)(KNF)
ORDER

VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:
On due consideration, after review of Magistrate Judge Fox’s Report and
Recommendation dated March 4, 2016 (the “R&R”), no party having objected, and the time for
objection having expired, the R&R is hereby approved and adopted.
In reviewing final decisions of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), courts
“‘conduct a plenary review of the administrative record to determine if there is substantial
evidence, considering the record as a whole, to support the Commissioner’s decision and if the
correct legal standards have been applied.’” McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146, 149 (2d Cir.
2014) (quoting Kohler v. Astrue, 546 F.3d 260, 265 (2d Cir. 2008)); see also Selian v. Astrue,
708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). “‘Substantial evidence’ is ‘more than a mere
scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion.’” Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting
Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971)).
In reviewing a report and recommendation, a district court “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). Where neither party objects to the magistrate judge’s report, a district
court may adopt the report so long as it finds “‘there is no clear error on the face of the record.’”
Phillips v. Reed Grp., Ltd., 955 F. Supp. 2d 201, 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Nelson v. Smith,
618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)).
The Court has carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Fox’s R&R and finds no clear error.
Although not clearly erroneous, one aspect of the R&R could benefit from additional
explanation. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Fox that substantial evidence supports the
Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) determination that Plaintiff has an adequate level of
adaptive functioning and, therefore, did not meet Listing 12.05. R&R at 14. To meet step 3 and
the criteria for Intellectual Disability under Listing 12.05, Plaintiff must show that her mental
impairment satisfied both the threshold showing required by the introductory paragraph of
Listing 12.05 and one of the four criteria in the subparagraphs. See Talavera, 697 F.3d at 153
(Listing 12.05 “requires that the applicant have ‘significantly subaverage general intellectual
functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning.’” (quoting 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1,
§ 12.05) (emphasis in Talavera)); see also Burnette v. Colvin, 564 F. App’x 605, 607 (2d Cir.
2014) (summary order) (“To satisfy Listing 12.05, the claimant must make a threshold showing
that she suffers from ‘significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in
adaptive functioning.’”). Thus, even though Plaintiff’s IQ score was diagnosed at 59, thereby
meeting the criteria in subparagraph B of Listing 12.05, Plaintiff also needed to prove that she
had sufficient deficits in adaptive functioning to meet the introductory paragraph. In concluding
that Plaintiff did not meet the Listing, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s IQ score but found that she
had not proven deficits in adaptive functioning. In fact, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had an
adequate level of adaptive functioning, notwithstanding her low IQ score.

The Court adopts the R&R in full. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Dkt. 18) is DENIED and Defendant’s Cross Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(Dkt. 24) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close docket entries 18
and 24 and to enter judgment and terminate the case.

SO ORDERED.

Date: July 6, 2016
New York, New York

_________________________________
VALERIE CAPRONI
United States District Judge