Daniels v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2011cv00332 - Document 18 (N.D.N.Y 2012)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER granting Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings; Affirming the Commissioner's determination and directing the entry of judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 3/6/2012. (amt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _________________________________ JINA L. DANIELS, on behalf of R.S., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-0332 (DEP) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. _________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: FOR PLAINTIFF: MARGOLIUS LAW OFFICE 7 Howard Street Catskill, NY 12414 PETER M. MARGOLIUS, ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT: HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York P.O. Box 7198 100 S. Clinton Street Syracuse, NY 13261-7198 DAVID E. PEEBLES U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH ROTHSTEIN, ESQ. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney DECISION AND ORDER Currently pending in this action, in which plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative determination by the Commissioner, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g), are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings.1 Oral argument was conducted in connection with those motions on February 29, 2012 during a telephone conference at which a court reporter was also present. At the close of argument I issued a bench decision in which, after applying the requisite deferential review standard, I found that the Commissioner s determination resulted from the application of proper legal principles and is supported by substantial evidence, providing further detail regarding my reasoning and addressing the specific issues raised by the plaintiff in her appeal. After due deliberation, and based upon the court s oral bench decision, a transcript of which is attached and incorporated herein by 1 This matter has been treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in General Order No. 18 (formerly, General Order No. 43) which was issued by the Hon. Ralph W. Smith, Jr., Chief United States Magistrate Judge, on January 28, 1998, and subsequently amended and reissued by Chief District Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., on September 12, 2003. Under that General Order an action such as this is considered procedurally, once issue has been joined, as if cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings had been filed pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 reference, it is hereby ORDERED, as follows: 1) Defendant s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. 2) The Commissioner s determination that plaintiff s infant son, R.S., was not disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, is AFFIRMED. 3) The clerk is directed to enter judgment, based upon this determination, dismissing plaintiff s complaint in its entirety. Dated: March 6, 2012 Syracuse, NY 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------x JINA L. DANIELS, on behalf of R.S., Plaintiff, vs. 11-CV-332 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. --------------------------------------------x Transcript of Telephone Conference (Decision) held on February 29, 2012, at the James Hanley Federal Building, 100 South Clinton Street, Syracuse, New York, the HONORABLE DAVID E. PEEBLES, Magistrate-Judge, Presiding. A P P E A R A N C E S For Plaintiff: PETER M. MARGOLIUS Attorneys at Law 7 Howard Street Catskill, New York 12414 For Defendant: SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Office of Regional General Counsel 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 BY: ELIZABETH D. ROTHSTEIN, ESQ. Eileen McDonough, RPR, CRR Official United States Court Reporter 100 South Clinton Street Syracuse, New York 13260 (315)234-8546 2 1 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I appreciate 2 excellent briefing on both sides and I appreciate the oral 3 argument. 4 facts and the record before the Court. 5 You both are very obviously conversant with the This matter stems from an application filed on 6 behalf of R.S., an infant who was born in December of 2001, 7 for Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, benefits under the 8 Act. 9 initially and following a hearing, and additionally following 10 review by the Social Security Administration appeals counsel, 11 and now plaintiff seeks review of that determination pursuant 12 to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act of 42, United 13 States Code, Section 405(g). 14 The application resulted in a denial of benefits both As you know, an SSI application on behalf of 15 an infant is governed by the Personal Responsibility and Work 16 Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which put in place a 17 standard which is similar to, but slightly deviant from, the 18 typical five step analysis that ordinarily applies to 19 disability claims. 20 Obviously, my role is to determine whether 21 that standard was properly applied and whether the result is 22 supported by substantial evidence in the record. 23 Going through the analysis, the Administrative 24 Law Judge initially found, of course, that the plaintiff had 25 not engaged in substantial gainful activity and that 3 1 certainly does not appear to be very controversial. 2 The Administrative Law Judge then next 3 determined that the claimant, the infant R.S., suffers from 4 severe impairments, including speech delay, learning delay 5 and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, which I will 6 call ADHD because I have a hard time pronouncing the entire 7 term. 8 seem to be terribly controversial, although I will note in 9 Dr. Hartman's report the diagnosis of ADHD was provisional 10 And, again, for purposes of step two, that does not only. 11 The ALJ then went on to state without analysis 12 that the claimant's impairments either singly or in 13 combination do not meet or medically equal any of the list of 14 impairments. 15 the ALJ did not elaborate, nor did the ALJ even indicate what 16 listings were considered. 17 Unfortunately, as plaintiff has pointed out, Obviously, in this case it's fairly simple to 18 conclude that the listing in question is listing 112.11, 19 which governs attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. 20 think the clear better practice would have been for the ALJ 21 to both indicate what listings he considered and rejected and 22 also to provide a rationale for the rejection. 23 I However, at least in this circuit it is fairly 24 clear that so long as it is apparent from the ALJ's decision 25 as a whole what his or her rationale was, and of course 4 1 assuming it is supported by substantial evidence, it is not a 2 fatal error that he or she did not go through the analysis at 3 that step. 4 The cases which were of course cited by 5 defendant's counsel that stand for that proposition include 6 Berry versus Schweiker at 675 F.2d, 464, and also an 7 unreported decision that relies on Berry; Salmini, 8 S-A-L-M-I-N-I, v. Commissioner of Social Security. 9 published at 371 Fed.Appx. 109, 2010 Westlaw, 1170133. 10 It is In this case to me it is clear that the ALJ 11 considered and then rejected the listing 112.11, and I find 12 substantial evidence to support that rejection. 13 find any evidence from which one could conclude that the 14 claimant in this case suffered from marked inattention, 15 marked impulsiveness, and marked hyperactivity, meaning one 16 would have to meet all three of those and have marked 17 deficits in those three areas, and additionally would have to 18 meet the age appropriate criteria of listing 112.02. 19 it's clear to me for the reasons that I'm going to elaborate 20 with regard to the next step, functional equivalence, that he 21 does not. 22 I did not And So, the ALJ then moved to functional 23 equivalence, and I find that his conclusions are well 24 supported. 25 psychiatrically hospitalized, has no history of outpatient We are dealing with an infant who has never been 5 1 mental health services, is, granted, listed as disabled by 2 the Committee on Special Education at his school; however, he 3 is classified only as suffering from speech and language 4 impairments and he is in regular classes with the exception 5 that he receives forty minutes a day of resource room special 6 education support and speech therapy for thirty minutes three 7 times per week. 8 9 The report of Dr. Hartman who examined the claimant suggests that he has mild difficulty attending to, 10 following and understanding age appropriate directions. He 11 is likely to have some difficulty completing age appropriate 12 tasks given his attention deficits. 13 be likely delayed in certain key areas in learning in 14 accordance with his age group. 15 ability to maintain appropriate social behavior with peers 16 and adults. 17 to changes in his environment. 18 questions and requesting assistance in an age appropriate 19 manner. 20 necessary precautions. He finds that he would He finds that he has a fair He has mild difficulty responding appropriately He has mild difficulty asking And has mild problems detecting danger and taking 21 He provisionally, as I indicated previously, 22 diagnosed the plaintiff as suffering, or claimant, I should 23 say, suffering from ADHD, as well as a communication 24 disorder, and notably recommended that R.S. continue in his 25 current educational placement with remedial services where 6 1 necessary. 2 I have also carefully reviewed the reports of 3 R.S.'s teachers and the non-examining consultative report of 4 Dr. D'Ambrocia, which with the exception of a marked 5 limitation discerned in the area, the domain area of 6 acquiring and using information, does not indicate any 7 marked, other marked limitations and there are no extreme 8 limitations noted. 9 determination that the functional equivalence to listing So, in my view the Commissioner's 10 112.11 has not been established is supported by substantial 11 evidence. 12 So, in conclusion, I find that the 13 Commissioner's determination resulted from the proper 14 application of appropriate legal principles and is supported 15 by substantial evidence. 16 So, I will grant defendant's motion for 17 judgment on the pleadings, deny plaintiff's motion for 18 judgment on the pleadings, and affirm the Commissioner's 19 determination. 20 I will issue an order to that effect 21 memorializing this oral ruling which will be transcribed by 22 the court reporter who is present today. 23 the participation on the part of both counsel and I hope you 24 have a good afternoon. 25 MR. MARGOLIUS: Again, I appreciate Thank you for your time, Your 7 1 Honor. 2 MS. ROTHSTEIN: 3 THE COURT: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 * Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. * * C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, EILEEN MCDONOUGH, RPR, CRR, Official Court Reporter in and for the United States District Court, Northern District of New York, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I attended the foregoing proceedings, took stenographic notes of the same, and that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript thereof. ________________________________ EILEEN MCDONOUGH, RPR, CRR Official U.S. Court Reporter
]]>
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.
