Bailey v. Colvin
Filing
16
DECISION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached Decision and Order, the Commissioner's 13 motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, and Plaintiff's 11 motion for similar relief is denied. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security against Donna M. Bailey. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 8/23/2018. (LAS)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DONNA M. BAILEY,
Plaintiff,
DECISION AND ORDER
16-CV-921-A
v.
NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Donna M. Bailey brings this action pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 401–433, 1381–1383f, for review of a
final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security that plaintiff Bailey was not
disabled. The Court has jurisdiction to review the final decision of the Commissioner
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).
The action is before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on
the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For
the reasons stated below, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the final
decision of the Commissioner denying plaintiff Bailey disability insurance benefits
and supplemental security income benefits under the Act. That decision is affirmed.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff Bailey argues primarily that Administrative Law Judge Bryce Baird
(the “ALJ”) substituted the ALJ’s own opinion about plaintiff’s symptoms and
disability for those of a treating psychiatrist, Sanjay Gupta, M.D. Plaintiff alleges the
ALJ favored earlier, less-reliable assessments of plaintiff by state-agency reviewing
psychologists, Edward Kamin, Ph.D., and Susan Santarpia, Ph.D., among other
flaws in the ALJ’s reasoning. The Court assumes the parties’ close familiarity with
the administrative record and all of the issues before the Court.
The Court finds the ALJ’s decision not to give great weight to the treating
psychiatrist’s one-line conclusion that plaintiff was disabled to have been proper.
The treating psychiatrist’s clinical findings were inconsistent with that conclusion,
other evidence was inconsistent with that conclusion, and a remand for further
evidence from the treating psychiatrist is unwarranted.
Similarly, the ALJ’s decision to give substantial weight to Dr. Kamin’s
consultive opinion, and some weight to Dr. Santarpia’s consultive opinion, was not
error. The Court finds no additional evidence is necessary to support the ALJ’s
decision, and that a remand for further explanations of the ALJ’s reasoning is not
necessary. The ALJ weighed the medical, vocational, and other evidence before the
ALJ, and substantial evidence appropriately interpreted under applicable law
supports the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff was not disabled.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security that plaintiff Donna M. Bailey was not disabled and
denying her disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits
under the Act is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the motion for
judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) of the Commissioner of
2
Social Security, Dkt. No. 13, is granted. The motion for judgment on the pleadings
of plaintiff Bailey, Dkt. No. 11, is denied. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of
the Commissioner of Social Security against Donna M. Bailey.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____Richard J. Arcara____________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Dated: August 23, 2018
3
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?