Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2018cv00215 - Document 14 (W.D.N.Y. 2019)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER granting 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to the extent it requests remand for further administrative proceedings; granting 12 Defendant's Motion to Remand for further administrative proceedings.. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 9/25/19. (AFB)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and close this case.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VENESSA DAVIS, Plaintiff, No. 1:18-cv-00215-MAT DECISION AND ORDER -vsNANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Venessa Davis(“Plaintiff”), represented by counsel, brings this action under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), seeking review of the final decision of Nancy A. Berryhill, former Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner” or “Defendant”), denying her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 9-1), arguing that the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment was not supported by substantial evidence because the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) relied on stale medical opinion evidence pre-dating significant changes in Plaintiff’s condition, namely, her involvement in motor vehicle accidents in 2015 and 2016, and surgery to repair a right rotator cuff injury in October 2016. Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ improperly failed to weigh -1- Dockets.Justia.com the opinions of her treating chiropractor. Finally, Plaintiff contends that the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence because the ALJ failed to incorporate any limitations in the RFC based on her post-concussive headaches, which were found to be a severe impairment at step two. In response, the Commissioner filed a Motion to Remand (Docket No. 12) the case for further administrative proceedings. Counsel for the Commissioner indicates that he contacted Plaintiff’s attorney via telephone and email to inquire whether there were any objections to the motion to remand but never heard back from him. Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded to the Commissioner’s motion or otherwise registered any objection with the Court. The Court sees no reason why the Commissioner’s Motion to Remand should not be granted, given that Plaintiff also has requested remand in her Motion. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to the extent that it requests reversal of the Commissioner’s decision and remand for further administrative proceedings, and the Court grants the Commissioner’s Motion to Remand for further administrative proceedings. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and close this case. SO ORDERED. s/ Michael A. Telesca _____________________________ HONORABLE MICHAEL A. TELESCA United States District Judge Dated: September 25, 2019 Rochester, New York -2-
]]>
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.
