Santana v. United States Attorney General et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 9 Motion to Remand and directing the Clerk of the Court to remove the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney's Office from the Caption. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on October 24, 2011. (MShepard)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________
AGUEDA SANTANA,
Plaintiff,

11-CV-6044
DECISION
and ORDER

v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
of Social Security,1
Defendant.
________________________________________

Plaintiff, Agueda Santana (“Plaintiff”), brings this action
pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act, seeking review of
the

final

decision

of

the

Commissioner

of

Social

Security

(“Commissioner”) denying her application for supplemental security
income (“SSI”). (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff applied for SSI on June
19, 2007, alleging a disability due to panic attacks and auditory
hallucinations. Her application was initially denied and a hearing
was held on September 17, 2009 before administrative law judge
(“ALJ”)

Wallace

Tannenbaum.

Transcript

of

the

Administrative

Proceedings (“Tr.”) at 17-23. Plaintiff, represented by counsel,
appeared and testified at the hearing. Tr. 24-444. ALJ Tannenbaum

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a form Complaint against the
Commissioner of Social Security. This Court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis and Ordered the Clerk of the Court to cause the United States Marshal to serve copies
of the Summons and Complaint on the Commissioner. (Docket No. 3.) Plaintiff also apparently
attempted to serve a Summons and Complaint on the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S.
Attorney’s Office, and such parties were thereafter added as named Defendants to the caption of
this case. (Docket No. 5-6). However, the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney’s Office
are not named as Defendants in the Complaint and the Complaint contains allegations related
only to the denial of Plaintiff’s disability application by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the
Clerk of the Court is directed to remove the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney’s
Office from the caption in this case.
Page 1

then issued an unfavorable decision on September 25, 2009 and the
Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review on January 5,
2011.

Plaintiff then filed this action on January 27, 2011.

The Commissioner now moves to remand this case to the Social
Security Administration for further proceedings pursuant to the
fourth

sentence

of

42

U.S.C.

§

405(g).

(Docket

No.

9.)

The

Commissioner contends that the ALJ improperly determined that there
was

insufficient

medical

evidence

to

support

Plaintiff’s

application, without first properly developing the record pursuant
to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(d) and 416.912(d).

Plaintiff, proceeding

pro se, has neither opposed nor responded to the Commissioner’s
request.
A

review

of

the record

indicates that,

with

respect

to

Plaintiff’s mental impairment, the ALJ only considered medical
records from the year 2007 and the ALJ did not consider medical
records with respect to any physical impairment. Tr. at 19, 21.
However, Plaintiff testified at the hearing in 2009 that she had
consistently sought treatment for her mental health problems during
the previous two-year period - including seeing a psychiatrist and
a therapist at St. Mary’s Mental Health Center as many as two times
per week. Tr. at 34.

Plaintiff also testified that she sought

medical treatment for certain physical impairments during the
period between 2007 and 2009. While the administrative record does
not contain this evidence, it was the ALJ’s duty to fully develop
the

record.

See

20

C.F.R.

§

404.1512(d)

Page 2

(“Before

we

make

a

determination that you are not disabled, we will develop your
complete medical history for at least the 12 months preceding the
month in which you file your application....”).

Where the ALJ

fails to fully develop the record before making an unfavorable
determination, remand to the Social Security Administration is
appropriate. See Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 505 2d Cir. 1998.
This Court finds that the ALJ failed to properly develop the
administrative record with respect to both Plaintiff’s mental and
physical impairments according to the applicable regulations.
Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Social Security
Administration

for

further

proceedings

consistent

with

this

opinion.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Commissioner’s motion to
remand this case to the Social Security Administration is granted.
The Clerk of the Court is also directed to remove the U.S. Attorney
General and the U.S. Attorney’s Office from the caption of this
case.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
s/Michael A. Telesca
MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:

Rochester, New York
October 24, 2011

Page 3