Schuster v. Colvin

Filing 20

DECISION AND ORDER denying 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 10 Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting Report and Recommendations in its entirety re 13 Report and Recommendations. (clerk to close case.) Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 5/11/17. (JMC)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__
BRENT J. SCHUSTER,
14-CV-486
DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,

-vsCOMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
__
I.

Introduction
Plaintiff Brent J. Schuster(“plaintiff”) brings this action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), claiming that the Commissioner of
Social Security (“Commissioner” or “defendant”) improperly denied
his applications for supplemental security income (“SSI”) payments
and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security
Act (“SSA”). Currently before the Court are the parties’ competing
motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On October 20, 2016, Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio issued
a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Docket No. 13) recommending
that defendant’s motion be granted and plaintiff’s motion be
denied.

As discussed further below, the Court agrees with Judge

Foschio’s findings and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
II.

Discussion
When specific objections are made to a magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation, the district judge makes a “de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C).

When only general objections are made to a

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district judge
reviews it for clear error or manifest injustice. E.g., Brown v.
Peters, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997), aff’d,
175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir. 1999).

After conducing the appropriate

review, the 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)(C).
Plaintiff’s applications for SSI and DIB, initially denied,
were filed on July 27, 2011 and alleged disability beginning on
August 1, 2007 due to back injury, two back surgeries, a disc
replacement, and a fusion. Administrative Transcript (hereinafter
“T.”) 167-173.

Following a hearing before an administrative law

judge (“ALJ”), during which testimony was taken from plaintiff and
a vocational expert (“VE”), the ALJ issued an unfavorable finding
that plaintiff was not disabled under the SSA.

T. 22-35.

In her decision, the ALJ found that plaintiff had the residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) to perform sedentary work with the
following limitations: sit for four hours and stand or walk for two
hours; alternate positions every 30 minutes between sitting and
standing; no overhead reaching or pushing/pulling; occasional use
of foot controls, stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling; no
balancing, climbing, or exposure to extreme temperatures.

T. 25.

On April 25, 2014, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request

-2-

for review of the ALJ’s decision.

T. 1-6.

The present action

ensued.
In his response to the R&R, plaintiff raises one specific
objection - namely, that Judge Foschio incorrectly concluded that
the ALJ properly assessed the opinion of treating physician Paul S.
Holley,

M.D.

Plaintiff

argues

that,

contrary

to

the

ALJ’s

conclusion, Dr. Holley’s opinion was consistent with plaintiff’s
self-reported activities of daily living and the other evidence of
record and should have been afforded controlling weight under the
treating physician rule..
Upon its de novo review and after careful consideration of
plaintiff’s objections, the Court accepts Judge Foschio’s proposed
findings and recommendation.

The treating physician rule requires

an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion
when

that

clinical

opinion
and

is

“well-supported

laboratory

diagnostic

by

medically

techniques

acceptable

and

is

not

inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.”
20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335
F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003). However, an ALJ may give less than
controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion if it does not
meet this standard, so long as she sets forth the reasons for her
determination.

See Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir.

2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“We will always give good
reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight
we give [the claimant's] treating source's opinion.”).

Here, the

ALJ adequately explained her reasons for affording less than
-3-

controlling weight to Dr. Holley’s opinion. In particular, the ALJ
explained

that

Dr.

Holley’s

opinion

was

inconsistent

with

plaintiff’s self-reported activities, which included providing
daily childcare for his three-year-old daughter.

The ALJ was

within her rights to conclude that the restrictions set forth in
Dr. Holley’s opinion, which included lying down for large portions
of the day and never stooping, crawling, or crouching, would render
an individual incapable of caring for an active toddler. Moreover,
and as discussed in the ALJ’s decision, the clinical findings of
plaintiff’s surgeon and the physical evaluations of plaintiff by
consultative physicians Fred Cohen, M.D., and Samuel Balderman,
M.D.,

were

inconsistent

with

the

restrictions

described

by

Dr. Holley. Notably, Dr. Balderman, a thoracic surgeon, found that
plaintiff’s cervical spine showed full flexion and extension and
fully rotary movement bilaterally.
Court cannot

conclude

that the

Under these circumstances, the
ALJ

erred

in

concluding

that

Dr. Holley’s opinion was inconsistent with the other substantial
evidence in the record.

The Court agrees with Judge Foschio that

plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ violated the treating physician
rule is without merit.
III. Conclusion
For

the

reasons

set

forth

above

and

in

the

undersigned adopts all of Judge Foschio’s conclusions.
(Docket

No.

13)

is

hereby

adopted

in

its

R&R,

the

The R&R

entirety.

The

Commissioner’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings (Docket
No. 10) is granted, and plaintiff’s motion for a judgment on the
-4-

pleadings is denied (Docket No. 8).

The Clerk of Court is

requested to close this case.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
S/Michael A. Telesca
__________________________
MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:

May 11, 2017
Rochester, New York

-5-