Hoose v. Colvin

Filing 15

ORDER granting 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Hon. Jonathan W. Feldman on 07/12/2017. (JKT)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TAMMY LYNN HOOSE, Plaintiff, ORDER 16-CV-6629 v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Plaintiff Tammy Hoose (hereinafter "plaintiff") brings the instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g) to review a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Social Security Disability benefits. See Complaint (Docket# 1). Presently before the Court are the parties' competing motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dockets## 11, 12. of the Federal On July 7, 2017, a hearing on the motions was held and arguments were heard from At the conclusion of counsel. the hearing, the Court read a detailed Decision and Order into the record. The Court adequately found explain that the the weight ALJ' s given decision to the ( 1) failed numerous to medical opinions of plaintiff's treating physicians NP Brezinksy and Dr. Cannariato. See Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000) (explaining the treating physician rule); see also Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Failure to provide 'good reasons' for not crediting the opinion of a claimant's treating physician is a ground for remand."); Beckers v. Colvin, 38 F. Supp. 3d 362, 372 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) ("Reports co-signed by a treating physician may be evaluated as having been the treating physician's opinion."); SSR 06-03P (explaining opinions from "other sources") March 27, 2017); as one consideration given to ( rescinded for claims filed after (2) failed to adequately explain why plaintiff's self-reporting of her activities of limited the would expect," daily living were particularly in light "not as of the significant limitations plaintiff described at the hearing; and (3) failed to adequately address whether the "acquired work skills" the ALJ found in plaintiff's past relevant employment were truly transferable skills or were instead simply traits, abilities. 2002), 2016) See Draegert v. Barnhart, aptitudes or 311 F.3d 468, 472 (2d Cir. see also Woods v. Colvin, 218 F. Supp. 3d 204, 211 (W.D.N.Y. (stating that the ALJ should explain "how Plaintiff acquired these skills through the performance of past work activities"). Accordingly and for the reasons set forth in the Court's oral Decision and Order, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket# 11) is granted and the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket# 12) is denied. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Decision and Order. SO ORDERED. Magistrate Judge Dated: July 12, 2017 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?