Powell v. Colvin, No. 3:2014cv01176 - Document 30 (D. Conn. 2017)
Court Description: RULING ON CROSS MOTIONS TO REMAND AND AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, and because I agree with Judge Margolis's conclusions in all respects, I will adopt her recommend ed ruling (Doc. # 19 ) and affirm the Commissioner's decision. Plaintiff's motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner or remand (Doc. # 14 ) is DENIED. Defendant's motion to affirm (Doc. # 15 ) is GRANTED. At oral argu ment the Court inquired of plaintiff's counsel about the serious concerns expressed by Judge Margolis in her recommended ruling relating to the deficiencies of plaintiff's counsel's performance. The Court was also surprised to learn at the hearing that counsel had not communicated with her client nor advised her client of today's hearing. The Court is concerned that counsel has not respected the rights of her client. See Conn. R. Prof. Cond. 1.4 (duties of communicati on with client). The Court advised counsel that it expects to see stronger performance from counsel in the future. If there are personal or other compelling reasons that prevent counsel from ably discharging her duties, the Court advised counsel that she should seek an extension of time as needed (and may do so under seal if there are personal or health reasons that counsel does not wish to make part of the public docket). Counsel may also wish to consider availing herself of assistance or guida nce from the Connecticut Bar Association in the event that there are systemic challenges for her ability to furnish adequate representation. See Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers, http://www.lclct.org/about.htm. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/20/2017. (Gruber, Sarah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT THEODORE ROOSEVELT POWELL, Plaintiff, v. No. 3:14-cv-01176 (JAM) CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. RULING ON CROSS MOTIONS TO REMAND AND AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Plaintiff Theodore Roosevelt Powell claims he is disabled, and has brought this action seeking review of the denial of his claim for disability insurance benefits. On September 28, 2016, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis issued a recommended ruling recommending that the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed. I will assume the parties’ familiarity with the factual record and rulings in this case. This Court “may adopt those portions of the recommended ruling to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record.” Dafeng Hengwei Textile Co. v. Aceco Indus. & Commercial Corp., 54 F. Supp. 3d 287, 291 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). I find no clear error to the portions of the recommended ruling for which no objection has been made. As for plaintiff’s two limited objections to the recommended ruling, I will review those “parts of the report and recommendation to which the party objected under a de novo standard of review.” Ibid.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). First, plaintiff disagrees that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff’s white finger syndrome (“WFS”) was a non-severe impairment. This argument stems from plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ should have recognized that plaintiff may now suffer from a severe case of late-stage, secondary Raynaud’s disease—which can be caused by WFS— even though none of his doctors have diagnosed him with that condition recently, let alone by his date last insured (“DLI”) of June 30, 2000. While plaintiff’s WFS may have worsened over the years, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that as of June 30, 2000, plaintiff’s WFS was a non-severe impairment. See Doc. #9-3 at 21, 24. Even then, the ALJ accounted for plaintiff’s impairment as of his DLI by limiting his residual functional capacity to no more than frequent handling, fingering, and feeling, and avoidance of moderate exposure to vibrations. See id. at 22. Plaintiff’s corollary argument that the ALJ should have obtained a medical expert to explain the WFS diagnosis was not raised in his initial brief to Judge Margolis; see Pirog v. Colvin, 2016 WL 5476006, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); and even if it had been raised, it would lack merit. See Carlson v. Barnhart, 2006 WL 2926818, at *15 (D. Conn. 2006); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1517. Plaintiff’s second objection is that the ALJ did not properly evaluate plaintiff’s 1996 award of benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Plaintiff’s claim again lacks merit: the ALJ explicitly considered the award—which did not substantively review plaintiff’s medical condition, and merely approved a proposed settlement agreement—in the ruling, notwithstanding its minimal probative value. See Doc. #9-8 at 40–41; Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Com’r, 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (noting that “[a]n ALJ does not have to state on the record every reason justifying a decision,” that “an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence submitted,” and that “[a]n ALJ’s failure to cite specific evidence does not indicate that such evidence was not considered”). 2 CONCLUSION Because I agree with Judge Margolis’s conclusions in all respects, I will adopt her recommended ruling and affirm the Commissioner’s decision. Plaintiff’s motion to reverse the decision of the Commissioner or remand (Doc. #14) is DENIED. Defendant’s motion to affirm (Doc. #15) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall close the case. It is so ordered. Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 20th day of March 2017. /s/ Jeffrey Alker Meyer Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
