Haderer v. Colvin
ORDER denying 6 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 9 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting Report and Recommendations re 11 Report and Recommendations. (Clerk to close case.) Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 12/16/16. (JMC)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
No. 1:15-CV-00676 (MAT)
DECISION AND ORDER
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Represented by counsel, Robert Haderer (“plaintiff”) brings
this action pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act (“the
Act”), seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying his application for
disability insurance benefits (“DIB”). The Court has jurisdiction
over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter was
initially before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for
judgment on the pleadings.1 The parties’ motions were referred to
Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott for consideration of the factual and
legal issues presented, and to prepare and file a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) containing a recommended disposition of the
recommended that the Commissioner’s motion be granted. Doc. 11.
Plaintiff filed objections on October 27, 2016. Doc. 12. For the
This case was originally assigned to Judge Richard Arcara, who referred
it to Magistrate Judge Scott for a Report and Recommendation, which was completed
and filed on October 13, 2016. The case was referred to this Court by order dated
December 2, 2016.
reasons set forth below, the Court overrules plaintiff’s objections
and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
The record reveals that in August 2012, plaintiff (d/o/b
April 28, 1956) applied for DIB, alleging disability as of November
2009. After his application was denied, plaintiff requested a
hearing, which was held before administrative law judge Donald
McDougall (“the ALJ”) on December 30, 2013. The ALJ issued an
unfavorable decision on February 27, 2014. The Appeals Council
granted review of that decision and this timely action followed.
III. Report and Recommendation
Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings argues that
evidence because it did not account for plaintiff’s ability to
sustain work on a full-time basis; and (2) the ALJ’s credibility
assessment was erroneous. The R&R concluded that the RFC assessment
credibility assessment was proper. Accordingly, the R&R recommended
that the Commissioner’s motion be granted.
When reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
a district court must “make a de novo determination of those
recommendations to which objection is made[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge[.]” Id.
Plaintiff objects to Judge Scott’s conclusions that (1) the ALJ
adequately accounted for plaintiff’s ability to sustain full-time
work; (2) the opinions of consulting psychologists Drs. Hill and
The Court has reviewed the administrative record, the medical
portion of which is relatively sparse. The Court finds that Judge
Plaintiff’s primary argument is that the opinions of Drs. Hill and
Tzetzo “could be interpreted as leading to plaintiff being off task
for at least 15% of the workday.” Doc. 6-1 at 13 (emphasis added).
However, “whether there is substantial evidence supporting the
[claimant]’s view is not the question . . . ; rather, [the Court]
Bonet ex rel. T.B. v. Colvin, 523 F. App’x 58, 59
(2d Cir. 2013) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
The Court similarly finds that plaintiff’s argument regarding
credibility is not persuasive, as the ALJ’s decision makes clear
that he applied the relevant legal principles when considering the
issue. See, e.g., Britt v. Astrue, 486 F. App’x 161, 164 (2d Cir.
2012) (finding explicit mention of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR
96–7p as evidence that the ALJ used the proper legal standard in
adopts the R&R in its entirety.
The Court hereby adopts the R&R (doc. 11) in its entirety. For
the reasons discussed in this Decision and Order as well as those
set forth in the R&R, the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings (Doc. 9) is granted and plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 6) is
denied. Plaintiff’s objections (doc. 12) are overruled. The Clerk
of the Court is directed to close this case.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
S/Michael A. Telesca
HON. MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
December 16, 2016
Rochester, New York.
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?