Corsi v. Astrue
-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP- DECISION AND ORDER denying 7 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 8 Commissioner's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. (clerk to close case.) Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 10/2/13. (JMC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
action pursuant to the Social Security Act § 216(i) and § 223,
seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Insurance Benefits ("DIB"). Plaintiff alleges that the decision of
the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") is not supported by substantial
evidence in the record and is contrary to applicable legal standards.
On June 4, 2013, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment
to reverse the Commissioner's decision judgment. On July 19, 2013,
the Commissioner cross-moved for judgment on
the pleadings pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) on the grounds that the findings of the
Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence.
F o r
t h e
reasons set forth below, this Court finds that there is substantial
Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted and
the Plaintiff's motion is denied.
On June 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed an application for DIB under
Title II, § 216(i) and § 223 of the Social Security Act, alleging a
diabetes, leg infection, knee pain, high cholesterol, gastric reflux
and back pain.
T. 134-138, 154.
August 23, 2010.
Plaintiff's claim was denied on
T. 88-91. At Plaintiff's request, an administrative
hearing was conducted on August 2, 2011 before an Administrative Law
counsel. T. 33-79.
On September 14, 2011, the ALJ issued a Decision finding that
Corsi was not disabled. T. 14-23. On October 25, 2012, the Appeals
Decision the final decision of the Commissioner. T. 1-3.
Plaintiff is a 47 year old high school graduate with nursing
training at Boces. T. 154-155. He worked as a taxi driver from early
2007 through October 30, 2009. T. 155.
Prior to that position,
Plaintiff worked as a resident aide and counselor for an overnight
health care facility from 2001 through 2005, a hall monitor and bus
driver for a school from 1995 through 2003 and a cashier from 2003
until early 2007. T. 155.
Corsi spends a typical day taking medications, making his meals,
sporting events. T. 166. He also
feeds and cares for his pets.
T. 166. Corsi claims that he can no longer walk long distances, drive
for extended periods of time, shovel snow, cut grass or sit for a
long time. T. 166.
Plaintiff enjoys attending sporting events on a
weekly basis but is limited in his ability to sit or stand for long
periods of time. T. 170.
In his application papers, Corsi indicated
he could walk 100 feet before resting for five to ten minutes.
A. Medical History
Plaintiff was treated for left leg ceullulitis in May, 2007 and
April and May, 2008. T. 262-263.
He was treated with antibiotics and
the issue appeared to be resolved. T. 262-263.
In March, 2009, the medical records from St. Joseph's Hospital
in Elmira, New York outpatient primary care indicate that Plaintiff
was off work for a week because of left knee pain.
tenderness over lumbar paraspinous muscles.
There was no obvious
swelling noted in the left knee. He was given Amrex samples and
referred to a chiropractor. T. 227.
Corsi was examined by Nurse Practitioner Darlene Baltimore of
T. 209. His blood sugar levels were running high. Corsi was still
driving a taxi and Ms. Baltimore directed him to stop working because
it was unsafe to drive a taxi with uncontrolled diabetes. T. 209.
Because Plaintiff did not want to go to Endocrinology, Ms. Baltimore
referred Corsi to Nancy Goban, a nurse practitioner from Internal
Medical Associates of the Southern Tier. Ms. Baltimore increased the
Lantus dosage and advised Plaintiff to watch his diet more carefully
and continue to monitor his blood sugar. T. 209.
follow up visit.
T. 208. She noted that Corsi had cancelled his
appointment with Nancy Goban for regulation of his sugar levels.
Plaintiff denied any foot problems.
Dr. Baltimore increased the
Lipitor dosage, prescribed Ramipril and Metformin and instructed him
to see Nancy Goban as soon as possible.
December 30, 2009 for diabetes follow up. T. 249. Ms. Goban noted
that Plaintiff's efforts to lose weight were unsuccessful and he does
3 times each day. T. 249. She indicated that Plaintiff's glucose
Aciphex, Ramipni and Actoplus Met. T. 249.
Ms. Goban recommended
Plaintiff no longer take Metformin but continue with Actosplus Met
and gave guidance as to how much Lantus to take. T. 250.
Corsi was treated by Ms. Baltimore on January 18, 2010 for
diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol. T. 207. Dr. Baltimore
noted that Plaintiff was feeling better, was off oral medications and
now treating diabetes with Lantus at bed time and a sliding scale of
Januvia and Actoplus.
T. 207. Ms. Baltimore noted that Corsi told
her he was not ready to go back to work and would like to be off
three more weeks. T. 207. Ms. Baltimore cleared him to return to work
in one month as long as his sugars stabilized. T. 207.
In February, 2010, Plaintiff was treated at a podiatric and foot
care facility to educate Plaintiff on diabetic footcare and arrange
regular foot care.
T. 210. Also in February, 2010, medical notes
from St. Joseph's Hospital outpatient primary care facility indicate
that Plaintiff expressed his desire to return to work. T. 225. He was
instructed to continue with diabetes management and his sugars were
lower. T. 225.
Plaintiff was treated monthly by Ms. Goban through June, 2010
Lantus he would take and guided him on how to best manage his sugar
During June, 2010, Corsi was also treated for left lower leg
cellulitis. T. 259-261.
Dr. Pranab Datta on August 6, 2010. T. 266-270.
Dr. Datta noted that
Corsi told her that he has had diabetes since 2003 with blood sugar
levels ranging between 280 to 300. T. 266. He also claimed to have a
history of low back pain starting around 2006. He claimed to have
pain from prolonged sitting or standing but he could walk about a
quarter of a mile before he feels pain. T. 266.
Corsi told Dr. Datta
that he had intermittent swelling and infection of the left leg and
examination, Corsi indicated that he cooked, but does not clean or do
laundry. T. 267. He could shop, shower and dress himself. His weight
at the time of the examination was 329 pounds at 5 feet 7 inches
tall. T. 267. Dr. Datta noted that Plaintiff did not appear to be in
acute distress and exhibited a normal gait although he did at times
limp and favor the left leg. T. 267. He needed no assistive devices
and was able to walk on heels with little difficulty. T. 267. The
bilaterally and full rotary movement bilaterally. T. 268. Similarly
the lumbar spine was normal. T. 268.
etiology. T. 269. He had no limitations with speech, hearing, sight,
and no limitations with upper extremities for fine and gross motor
Dr. Datta did find Plaintiff had “mild limitations for
Plaintiff avoid heavy lifting, pushing, pulling or carrying. T. 269.
lumbosacral spine showed that he had degenerative spondylosis at L2L3 and L4-L5. T. 271.
A Medical Source Statement of Claimant's Ability to Perform
Povanda on October 12, 2010. T. 279-283. In this report, Dr. Povanda
indicated that Plaintiff was able to lift or carry on a sustained
Plaintiff was not limited to use of hands but could only occasionally
reach overhead or push and pull. T. 280. Plaintiff was described as
never able to stoop, bend, crouch, squat, kneel, climb ladders but
was occasionally able to twist or climb stairs. T. 281. Because of
his lumbosacral spine, Plaintiff was limited to sitting, standing or
walking less than two hours in an 8 hour work day and only able to
Dr. Povanda also noted that Plaintiff's pain causes him to frequently
lose attention and concentration and is only able to tolerate stress
exposure to heights, temperature extremes and vibrations and avoid
significant exposure to moving machinery, chemicals, humidity, dust
and fumes. T. 282.
On April 28, 2011, Plaintiff presented to St. Joseph's Hospital
in Elmira with complaints of chronic lower back pain. T. 291. He
standing with little difficulty. T. 291. Plaintiff was continued on
his current medication regimen including continuing with Celebrex.
T. 292. He was also prescribed tramadol as needed for pain relief and
instructed to return for follow up in three months. T. 292.
At the follow up examination in August, 2010, Plaintiff again
complained of chronic back pain. T. 298. Ms. Baltimore noted that
limitations for prolonged sitting, standing or walking and was to
Plaintiff's blood sugar levels were high because he claimed he did
not have the co-pay money to purchase insulin. T. 298.
He was given
samples of Humalog, Lantus, Celebrex, Januvia, ActosPlus Met, and
Zegerid in place of omegrazole. T. 298.
Corsi was next examined by Ms. Baltimore in November, 2010 after
an automobile accident in a parking lot. T. 296. Although CT of the
brain was negative, Plaintiff complained of a headache and pain in
the back of his head and neck. T. 296. Plaintiff had lost 20 pounds
and noted that his treatments with Ms. Goben have helped him better
Plaintiff to take Ibuprofen for pain and to try Flexeril, warm moist
examination in December, 2010, Plaintiff had no complaints and his
blood glucose levels were much improved. T. 295.
Dr. Povanda completed a questionnaire on May 25, 2012 regarding
Plaintiff. T. 318-320.
In this report, Dr. Povanda noted that he
treated Plaintiff for a herniated lumbar disc L4-L5 on May 22, 2012.
T. 318. Dr. Povanda noted that upon review of Plaintiff's medical
records from his office that Plaintiff was obese and that the obesity
“exacerbates limitations caused by the other medical impairments”
with respect to standing, walking, stooping, bending, work pace and
the need to rest. T. 318.
Dr. Povanda indicated that there no amount
checked the box saying that Plaintiff needed complete freedom to rest
frequently without restriction. T. 319. Dr. Povanda would expect more
than four absences each month if Plaintiff were to return to full
time work. T. 319.
He further found that Plaintiff's ability to work
is severely restricted in his ability to sustain work pace. T. 319.
An MRI of the lumbar spine from May 25, 2012 showed an herniated
disc at L5 and L1 causing spinal stenosis at L5-S1. There was a
moderate disk bulge at L3-L4. T. 321.
B. Plaintiff's Hearing Testimony
Plaintiff testified that he worked as a bus driver, stocker of
association. T. 39-43. As part of his responsibilities working for
the recreation association, Plaintiff set up equipment, signs and the
fields for games. T. 43-44. He was required to carry baseball bases
weighing as much as 15 to 20 pounds and place them on the field.
T. 44. Plaintiff performed this work until November, 2010 when he was
let go because he couldn't do the required lifting of heavier items.
Plaintiff testified that he can't work because of his diabetes,
back and knee pain. T. 46-47. He was receiving unemployment benefits
until July 11, 2011 and continued looking for work. T. 75. Corsi
testified that he could perform sit down jobs such as a secretary or
answer phones and that he applied for these jobs via the internet.
T. 75. Plaintiff also applied for part-time sales associates jobs at
the mall. T. 77. He claimed that he had back pain all of the time as
well as pain in the legs. T. 63. Corsi testified that he experiences
sweatiness and headaches about one or twice a week from uncontrolled
sugar levels and that he needs to lie down twice a day to relieve
back pain. T. 64. When he sweats and shakes from high blood sugar, it
takes five to ten minutes to stop by drinking water, taking insulin
or changing his eating habits. T. 65.
Plaintiff testified that he experiences no side effects from his
medications and he takes a nap every day for approximately 30 to
45 minutes. T. 66. He can walk 10 to 15 minutes before he has to sit
down because he is tired, out of breath and his back bothers him.
T. 67. He can sit 20 to 30 minutes without becoming uncomfortable and
needing to change position. T. 67. Corsi testified that he could lift
20 pounds occasionally and he is able to go up stairs using the rail.
Plaintiff testified that he sees Nurse Practitioner Nancy Goban
every three months for monitoring his diabetes but that it remained
uncontrolled. T. 48-49. When he wakes up in the morning, his blood
sugars were on average 165 or 170 and but his sugar levels were
becoming more controllable. T. 49.
Corsi testified that Dr. Povanda was treating him for back pain
Plaintiff testified that he does not see Dr. Povanda often and thinks
Tramadol for back pain and had not seen a back
specialist. T. 50.
Dr. Melanowsi was treating
Plaintiff for cellulitis. T. 52.
Plaintiff testified that he was hospitalized for cellulitis in late
as well as in 2008. T. 52-53. Plaintiff wears
stockings to keep the swelling down.
Plaintiff testified that his weight was approximately the same
as when he worked as a taxi driver. T. 54. According to Plaintiff,
his weight does not affect him except that he gets tired and affects
his diabetes. T. 54. Plaintiff testified that he cannot walk far
before he has to sit down and rest. T. 55.
Corsi lives in a single family house with his wife. T. 55-56.
The house has stairs that Corsi goes up twice a day to go to his
bedroom on the second floor. T. 56. Corsi can wash, dress and get his
own meals. Plaintiff testified that he sometimes does indoor house
chores but these were most often done by his wife. He shops for
groceries at times but most often it is done by his wife. Plaintiff
spends his days watching television, napping and visiting friends. He
is able to drive his car 20 to 25 minutes without a break. T. 57-60.
Plaintiff last worked as a taxi driver on October 30, 2009 after
three years when he stopped because of his back pain and diabetes.
I. Scope of Review
Title 42 U.S.C. §405(g) directs the Court to accept the findings
of fact made by the Commissioner, provided that such findings are
evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion." Consolidated Edison Co. v.
NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
The Court's scope of review is
supported by substantial evidence in the record, and whether the
Commissioner employed the proper legal standards in evaluating the
plaintiff's claim. Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033, 1038 (2d Cir.
Judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) may be granted
where the material facts are undisputed and where judgment on the
convinced that the plaintiff has not set forth a plausible claim for
relief, judgment on the pleadings may be appropriate. see generally
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
II. The Commissioner's Determination of the Onset Date is Supported
by Substantial Evidence in the Record
The ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning
of the Social Security Act.
In doing so, the ALJ adhered to the
evaluating disability benefits. (Tr. 12-18)
The five step analysis
requires the ALJ to consider the following: 1) whether the claimant
is performing substantial gainful activity; 2) if not, whether the
claimant has a severe impairment which significantly limits his or
3) whether the claimant suffers a severe impairment that has lasted
or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve
months, and his impairment(s) meets or medically equals a listed
impairment contained in Appendix 1, Subpart P, Regulation No. 4, if
so, the claimant is presumed disabled;
4) if not, the ALJ next
considers whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing
past relevant work given his or her residual functional capacity;
5) if the claimant's impairments prevent his or her from doing past
relevant work, whether other work exists in significant numbers in
disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v) and 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v).
Under step one of the process, the ALJ found that the Plaintiff
had not engaged in substantial gainful activity at any time during
the period from his alleged onset date of October 30, 2009. T. 16.
The ALJ next found that the Plaintiff suffered from the following
extremities, and chronic back pain. T. 17.
At step 3, The ALJ found
that Plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal the
listed impairments in Appendix 1, Subpart P. T. 18.
Further, the ALJ
found that Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform
the full range of sedentary work in that the Plaintiff was able to
frequently, stand or walk for
about two hours in an eight hour
workday and sit for about six hours in an eight hour work day. T. 19.
The ALJ next determined that Plaintiff was not able to perform his
considering Plaintiff's age, education, past relevant work experience
and residual functional capacity, there were jobs that existed in
significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant could
perform. T. 22.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by: 1)failing to properly
apply the treating source rule; 2) failing to properly evaluate the
substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ conclusion that
the Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social
A. Substantial Evidence in
Evaluation of the Medical Evidence
Plaintiff first contends that the ALJ failed to properly apply
the treating physician rule. He argues that the ALJ failed to accord
controlling weight to the opinion of Plaintiff's treating physician,
Dr. Povanda, concerning his functional capacity assessment.
Pursuant to the treating physician rule, the medical opinion of
the physician engaged in the primary treatment of a claimant is given
“controlling weight” if it is well-supported by medically acceptable
clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent
with the other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). An ALJ may decline to give controlling
“(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent
of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the
opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole;
and (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist.” Shaw v. Chater,
221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000); Clark v. Commissioner of Social
consideration of the treating source evidence be explicit in the
record. Burgin v. Astrue, 2009 WL 3227599 (2d Cir. October 8, 2009).
conflicting medical opinions and articulated good reasons for not
giving Dr. Povanda's opinion controlling weight.
The ALJ gave significant weight to the opinion of Dr. Datta, the
consultative examiner. Dr. Datta found Plaintiff to be mildly limited
for prolonged sitting, standing, and walking and that he should avoid
observations of Plaintiff walking with a normal gait, having negative
conservative medical treatment by his treatment providers. Plaintiff
indicated that he shopped, cooked, dressed and bathed himself, and
socialized with friends. He was also able to climb stairs at home
twice a day. T. 19-20. Moreover, Plaintiff testified that he sought
part-time work, and even certified that he was ready willing and able
benefits. T. 74-75.
Conversely, the ALJ accorded no weight to Dr. Povanda's finding
that Plaintiff could sit, stand and walk for two hours with the need
to change positions every 15 minutes because it was not consistent
with the medical evidence. T. 21.
First, the ALJ noted that there is
no evidence that Dr. Povanda was a regular treatment provider for
Plaintiff. Plaintiff's treatment at Dr. Povanda's office was almost
entirely conducted by nurse practitioners or physicians' assistants.
Plaintiff could not remember the last time he saw Dr. Povanda
and there were no medical reports that showed he ever actually was
Dr. Povanda and there was no clinical examination imaging studies or
other evidence that Dr. Povanda considered any source of Plaintiff's
functional limitations other
than Corsi's own statements. T. 21.
Baladi v. Barnhart, 33 Fed. Appx. 562, 564 (2d Cir. 2002) (ALJ not
subjective complaints and unremarkable test results).
I find that the ALJ correctly held that Dr. Povanda’s opinion
consistent with the record as a whole and, therefore, not entitled to
greater weight than the findings of Dr. Datta.
B. Substantial Evidence Supports the ALJ’s Analysis of Obesity and
Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ failed to properly assess the
effect of Plaintiff's obesity in determining his residual functional
Social Security Ruling 02-1p directs ALJs to consider whether a
claimant's obesity significantly limits his or her ability to do work
activities, including whether it makes other ailments worse. The
ruling provides: “[o]besity can cause limitation of function . . . An
individual may have limitations in any of the exertional functions
such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, and
pulling.” SSR 02-1p(8). The ruling also provides that “[t]he combined
effects of obesity with other impairments may be greater than might
be expected without obesity . . . As with any other impairment, we
will explain how we reached our conclusions on whether obesity caused
any physical or mental limitations.” Id.
Here, the ALJ's decision explains that plaintiff's obesity was
considered in determining his residual functional capacity. In his
decision, the ALJ listed morbid obesity as one of Plaintiff's severe
offered an opinion as to Plaintiff's residual functional capacity all
specifically noted Plaintiff's obesity and factored it into their
“By weighing those opinions I have likewise fully
limitations due to the Claimant's weight would be an impermissible
substitution of my own medical opinion.” T. 22.
Here, the ALJ discussed the medical providers' diagnoses and
opinions including their repeated acknowledgement that Plaintiff was
assessment as to Plaintiff's residual functional capacity. The ALJ's
conclusion of the overall effect of Plaintiff's obesity is supported
obesity into his RFC determination by relying on medical reports that
repeatedly noted [the plaintiff's] obesity and provided an overall
assessment of her work-related limitations.”)
Accordingly, the record clearly reflects that the ALJ adequately
considered Plaintiff's obesity and its impact on his other conditions
in compliance with with SSR 02-1p. See, Talavera v. Commissioner of
Social Security, 2011 WL
3472801, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2011)
(The ALJ properly considered the plaintiff's obesity because,inter
alia, she listed “'obesity' as one of [the plaintiff's] impairments,
which she assumed to be severe.”), aff'd in separate opinions, 697
F.3d 145 and 2012 WL 4820808 (2d Cir. 2012); Cruz v. Barnhart, 2006
WL 1228581, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2006)(no error where “the ALJ made
Similarly, Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to properly
evaluate the effect of diabetes on his Residual Functional Capacity.
He contends that the medical records show poor control of sugar
The ALJ acknowledged that the medical records reflect that
Plaintiff has had high blood sugars and indeed lists diabetes as one
of Plaintiff's severe impairments. However, the ALJ also noted that
limiting nature of his impairments to be partially credible. T. 21.
Plaintiff's medical treatment had been conservative, Plaintiff made
little to no attempt to exercise, lose weight, be compliant with
diabetes medications or control his eating habits. T. 20, 21. I find
substantial evidence to support the ALJ's evaluation of Plaintiff's
condition with regard to diabetes.
C. Substantial Evidence in the Record
Supports the ALJ's
Determination of Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity to
Perform Sedentary Work
Finally, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by resting the
sedentary work without taking into account Plaintiff's limitation
with regard to his ability to reach overhead
push and pull.
Plaintiff points to the residual functional capacity form that was
completed by Dr. Povanda in support of his position that he was
limited in these capacities.
Further, Plaintiff argues that the
ALJ's residual functional capacity analysis failed to account for
Plaintiff's limitations in his ability to sit, stand, walk, stoop,
bend, crouch, squat, kneel and climb ladders or stairs.
In assessing a claimant's RFC, the ALJ must consider all of the
relevant medical and other evidence in the case record to assess the
claimant's ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory and other
requirements of work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3)-(4).
It is within
the province of the ALJ to weigh conflicting evidence in the record
and credit that which is more persuasive and consistent with the
record as a whole. See, e.g., Veno v Barnhart, 312 F. 3d 578, 588 (2d
Cir. 2002) ("Genuine conflicts in the medical evidence are for the
Commissioner to resolve.") (citing Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S.
389, 399 (1971)); Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 504 (2d Cir. 1998)
("It is for the SSA, and not this court, to weigh the conflicting
evidence in the record.")
limitations, the evidence did not support the presence of limitations
that would preclude Plaintiff from performing a range of sedentary
The ALJ reached this conclusion from a review of all
of the relevant medical evidence as well as evaluating Plaintiff's
The ALJ properly considered both Dr. Datta's and Dr. Povanda's
assessments of Plaintiff's functioning. T. 21-22. As noted above, the
ALJ accorded probative weight to Dr. Datta's opinion finding it was
consistent with the record as a whole.
The ALJ properly considered
improvement with treatment and there was a lack of objective evidence
suggestive of back pain other than an x-ray of the lumbosacral spine
activities of daily living; that he cooked, shopped intermittently,
attended to personal care independently, and socialized with friends.
stance, walked on heels with little difficulty and required no help
getting on or off the examination table.
Nurse Practitioner Gonzalez
noted Plaintiff being able to move his upper and lower extremities
without difficulty and having muscle strength in his upper and lower
The ALJ noted that Dr. Datta's findings of a mostly
normal gait, negative straight leg raising, and finding a full range
of motion in Plaintiff's shoulders, elbows, forearms, wrists, hips,
knees and ankles were all consistent with sedentary work. T. 21. It
is noted that, although the ALJ did not give weight to Dr. Povanda's
opinion, Dr. Povanda's own finding that Plaintiff could lift and
carry up to 20 pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently is
actually less restrictive than the ALJ's finding of sedentary work.
I find substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ finding
of Plaintiff's residual functional capacity.
After careful review of the entire record, and for the reasons
stated, this Court finds that the Commissioner's denial of DIB was
based on substantial evidence and was not erroneous as a matter of
law. Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed. For the
reasons stated above, the Court grants Commissioner's motion for
judgment on the pleadings is denied (Dkt. No. 7), and Plaintiff's
complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Michael A. Telesca
Honorable Michael A. Telesca
United States District Judge
October 2, 2013
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?