Urbanak v. Berryhill, No. 1:2017cv05515 - Document 27 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE PITMAN AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT for 14 Motion to Remand to Agency filed by Patricia Anne Urbanak, 25 Report and Recommendations, 21 Motio n for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Nancy A. Berryhill. I therefore accept the report and adopt it as the opinion of the court. The Commissioner's motion is granted; the Plaintiffs cross-motion is denied; and the complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to remove the motions at Docket # 15 and 22 from the court's list of open motions, and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 8/7/2018) (rro)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Urbanak v. Berryhill Doc. 27 r-i:::::.U=S=D=C=S=D=~==y====-==.::::::;l UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.x 1DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALL y FlLED DOC#:__ PATRICIA ANNE URBANAK, df'Hi'. . :. · ' · ' : ' ~ . I • r f"' I ''!) ,; f __ ' Plaintiff, -against- 17 Civ. 5515 (CM)(HBP) NANCY A BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x DECISION AND ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE PITMAN AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT McMahon, CJ: I have carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation of The Hon. Henry B. Pitman, U.S.M.J., in which the learned Magistrate Judge concludes that the motion of the Commissioner to uphold her finding that Plaintiff is capable of performing light work and denying her request for benefits be granted, and that the cross-motion of Plaintiff for remand to the Commissioner be denied. I have also reviewed the Objections filed by counsel for Plaintiff to the Report and Recommendation. The Report is thoughtful and thorough. It not only applies the correct legal standard, but it anticipates and responds persuasively to each of the very few objections raised by counsel for Plaintiff. It does not "cherry pick" evidence; it does not fail to give appropriate deference to treating physicians' opinions (with much greater deference appropriately given to opinions that were rendered after the plaintiff had her back surgery, which is the date on which her disability commenced); it appropriately refuses to conflate the standards for ascertaining workers compensation "disability" and Social Security "disability" - indeed, the Report is the model of a proper review of an administrative record. There can be no doubt that the Commissioner's determination is supported by substantial evidence. Dockets.Justia.com I therefore accept the report and adopt it as the opinion of the court. The Commissioner's motion is granted; the Plaintiffs cross-motion is denied; and the complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to remove the motions at Docket # 15 and 22 from the court's list of open motions, and to close this case. Dated: August 7, 2018 Chief Judge BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL BY EMAIL TO THE HON. HENRY B. PITMAN
]]>
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.
