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-

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. § 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( rescinded for claims filed after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