Ocasio v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER adopting 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security, 17 Report and Recommendations. Magistrate Judge Fox's Report is ADOPTED in full. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, (ECF No. 15), is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion, accordingly. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 3/18/2019) (mro) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
TONY OCASIO, JR.,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
18 Civ. 959 (GBD) (KNF)

NANCY BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Tony Ocasio, Jr. brings this action against the Acting Commissioner of Social
Security, Nancy A. Berryhill, seeking disability insurance benefits pursuant to Title II of the Social
Security Act ("SSA"). 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434, and Supplemental Security Income benefits pursuant
to Title XVI of the SSA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1385.

Plaintiff opposes the Social Security

Administration and reviewing Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") determinations that he is
ineligible for benefits. 1 (See Compl., ECF No. 2, 116-7.) Defendant now moves for judgment on
the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). (Def.'s Mot. for Judgment on the
Pleadings, ("Def.' s Mot."), ECF No. 15.) Before this Court is Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel
Fox's March 1, 2019 Report and Recommendation ("Report," ECF No. 17), recommending that
Defendant's motion be granted. (Id. at 17.) This Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Fox's Report
in full.

1

A more complete procedural and factual background is set forth in greater detail in the Report and is
incorporated by reference herein.

I.

LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Report and Recommendations.
This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations" set forth in a magistrate judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l )(C). If any party
properly objects, a court must review a magistrate judge's report de nova. Id. Portions of a
magistrate judge's report to which no or "merely perfunctory" objections are made are reviewed
for clear error. See Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citation
omitted). Clear error exists only when "upon review of the entire record, [the court is] left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Snow, 462
F.3d 55, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
Because the parties have not filed written objections in this case, this Court reviews the Report
for clear error.
B. Rule 12(c) Judgment on the Pleadings.
A party may move for judgment on the pleadings when it is clear from the pleadings that "the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Burns Int'! Sec. Serv., Inc. v. Int'! Union,
United Plant Guard Workers, 47 F.3d 14, 16 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).

The standard for addressing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) is the
same as the standard used in evaluating a Rule l 2(b )( 6) motion. See, e.g., L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old
Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419, 429 (2d Cir. 2011); Bank of New York v. First Millennium, Inc., 607

F.3d 905, 922 (2d Cir. 2010). Accordingly, to survive a Rule 12(c) motion, "a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678 (2009) (quoting Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)).

2

C. Review of the Commissioner's Decision.

In reviewing a denial of social security benefits, a district court must determine whether
the decision is "supported by substantial evidence[.]" Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir.
1998) (citing Beauvoir v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1432, 1433 (2d Cir.1997)). Remand to the ALJ is
appropriate "[ w]hen there are gaps in the administrative record or the ALJ has applied an improper
legal standard." Atkinson v. Barnhart, 87 F. App'x 766, 768 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Pratts v.
Chatter, 94 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 1996)).
II.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOX'S REPORT

A. The Administrative Law Judge Correctly Determined That Plaintiff Was Capable Of
Performing Some Work.

After the Social Security Administration denied Plaintiffs application for disability
insurance benefits, Plaintiff requested a hearing before an ALJ. (Compl.

1 6-7.)

The ALJ found

that, although Plaintiff suffered from severe impairments, these impairments were not so severe
that they rendered Plaintiff completely incapable of working because Plaintiff had the capacity to
perform some functions. (Report at 7.) Moreover, to ensure that Plaintiffs medical conditions
were not frustrated, the ALJ stated that Plaintiff "must be allowed to be off task ten percent of the
work day[.]" (Id. at 7, 9.)
Magistrate Judge Fox correctly determined that the ALJ's findings were supported by
substantial evidence because Plaintiffs contention that he is unable to work is inconsistent with
his medical records and own accounts of his physical and mental capacity. (Id. at 15.) Plaintiff
underwent physical therapy and "reported that he had good pain relief[.]" (Id. at 16.) Additionally,
an internal medical consultative examiner, Dr. Joshi, concluded that Plaintiff "was capable of less
than light work[,]" and Plaintiffs own accounts of his daily activities and interactions with others
indicated that he is "able to perform some physical activities[.]" (Id.)
3

Accordingly, because the record clearly demonstrates that Plaintiff has the capacity to work
with the limitations set forth by the ALJ, this Court ADOPTS the recommendations in Magistrate
Judge Fox's Report.

III.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Fox's Report is ADOPTED in full. Defendant's motion for judgment on
the pleadings, (ECF No. 15), is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion,
accordingly.

Dated: March 18, 2019
New York, New York

SO ORDERED.

4