Dennis v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:2019cv01181 - Document 17 (W.D.N.Y. 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER denying 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Hon. Mark W. Pedersen on 3/15/21. (KAP)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dennis v. Commissioner of Social Security Doc. 17 Case 1:19-cv-01181-MJP Document 17 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARCUS D., Plaintiff, -vANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. : : : : : : : : : : : : : 1:19-CV-1181-MJP ORDER Plaintiff filed an action seeking judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, which denied his claim for Supplemental Security Income, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), made applicable to SSI by 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3). Both parties filed Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings, and oral argument was held on February 25, 2021. This Court has reviewed the parties’ competing motions together with their respective memoranda of law, and the arguments of Anthony John Rooney, Esq. of The Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller, PPLC, attorney of record for Plaintiff, and Sixtina Fernandez, Esq., Special Assistant United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, attorney of record for Defendant. Now, upon all pleadings, the administrative record, the parties’ memoranda of law, and the arguments of the parties, It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED, for the reasons stated in open Court at the oral argument of this matter on February 25, 2021 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the transcript of which is incorporated herein, and the parties’ consent, and consistent with this Court’s ruling from the bench following oral argument, the decision of Defendant Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-01181-MJP Document 17 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 10 Commissioner is affirmed; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 8) is denied; and it is further ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the transcript of the Court's Decision shall be filed, and the Court Clerk shall issue Judgment in favor of the Commissioner and close this case. SO ORDERED. ______________________________ MARK W. PEDERSEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: March 15, 2021 Rochester, New York Case 1:19-cv-01181-MJP Document 17 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 10 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT (Presiding Judge's name) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X MARCUS D. ) 19CV1181 Claimant ) vs. Rochester, New York COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,February 25, 2021 Respondent. 3:15 p.m. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X DECISION Transcribed from an audio recording TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARK W. PEDERSEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ANTHONY JOHN ROONEY, ESQ. Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller, PPLC 6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1A Amherst, New York 14226 SIXTINA FERNANDEZ, ESQ. Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3904 New York, New York 10278 20 21 22 23 24 25 COURT REPORTER: Karen J. Clark, Official Court Reporter Karenclark1013@AOL.com 100 State Street Rochester, New York 14614 1 Case 1:19-cv-01181-MJP Document 17 Filed 03/15/21 Page 4 of 10 1 M. DENNIS VS. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 2 P R O C E E D I N G * * * 3 4 5 2 (Whereupon, the proceeding began at 3:15 p.m. and arguments were made by counsel on the record.) (TIME 3:37 P.M) THE CLERK: We are back on the record, your 14:13:03 6 14:13:05 7 14:13:05 8 14:13:07 9 14:13:09 10 prepared to issue my decision. 14:13:17 11 Section 405(g) grants jurisdiction to district courts to 14:13:22 12 hear claims based on the denial of social security 14:13:26 13 benefits. 14:13:40 14 court shall have the power to enter, upon the pleadings 14:13:43 15 and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, 14:13:46 16 modifying or reversing a decision of the Commissioner of 14:13:49 17 Social Security with or without remanding the cause for 14:13:53 18 a rehearing. 14:13:56 19 court must consider the findings of fact made by the 14:14:01 20 Commissioner provided that such findings are supported 14:14:26 21 by substantial evidence in the record. 14:14:29 22 evidence is defined as more than a mere scintilla. 14:14:41 23 means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 14:14:44 24 accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 14:14:48 25 determine whether substantial evidence supports the Honor. THE COURT: Thank you very much, counsel. Thank you very much for a thorough argument. I am Title 42 of U.S. Code Section 405(g) provides that the district It directs when considering claims, a Substantial To It Case 1:19-cv-01181-MJP Document 17 Filed 03/15/21 Page 5 of 10 1 M. DENNIS VS. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 14:15:01 2 Commissioner's finding, the Court must examine the 14:15:03 3 entire record, including contradictory evidence and 14:15:07 4 evidence from which conflicting inferences can be drawn. 14:15:10 5 Section 405(g) limits the Court's review to two 14:15:23 6 inquires: 14:15:26 7 supported by substantial evidence in the record; and 14:15:29 8 whether the Commissioner's conclusions are based upon an 14:15:32 9 erroneous legal standard. 14:15:34 10 A person is disabled for the purposes of SSI 14:15:37 11 and Disability benefits if he or she is unable to engage 14:15:41 12 in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any 14:15:55 13 medically determinable physical or mental impairment 14:15:59 14 which can be expected to result in death or which has 14:16:02 15 lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous 14:16:05 16 period of not less than 12 months. 14:16:07 17 14:16:10 18 the ALJ must employ a five-step sequential analysis set 14:18:44 19 out in Berry v. Schweiker, 675 F. 2d 464, 477, Second 14:18:51 20 Circuit 1982. 14:18:52 21 The claimant bears the burden of proving his 14:18:57 22 or her case at steps one through four; and at step five, 14:19:10 23 the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show there is 14:19:13 24 other gainful work in the national economy which the 14:19:16 25 claimant could perform. Whether the Commissioner's findings were In assessing whether a claimant is disabled, 3 Case 1:19-cv-01181-MJP Document 17 Filed 03/15/21 Page 6 of 10 1 M. DENNIS VS. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 14:19:19 2 In this case, the first point that the 14:19:22 3 claimant raises in his brief is that the ALJ erred in 14:19:26 4 coming to a highly specific ALC based on the vague 14:19:31 5 opinion of Dr. Miller. 14:19:45 6 is that Dr. Miller, in her review, did not take a look 14:19:48 7 at the MRI results that were produced in October of 2015 14:19:53 8 and she made her examination in 2016. 14:20:06 9 is a case from the Second Circuit, it's an unpublished 14:20:10 10 decision called Wright, W-r-i-g-h-t, v. Berryhill, 2017 14:20:25 11 Westlaw 1379389 at page 1, Second Circuit, April 14, 14:20:35 12 2017. 14:20:37 13 reversible error for the ALJ also to give great weight 14:20:42 14 to Dr. Wassef's opinion. 14:21:00 15 the Plaintiff and reached conclusions consistent with 14:21:03 16 the objective medical evidence. 14:21:05 17 circumstances, the facts that Dr. Wassef's specialty is 14:21:10 18 pediatrics, and his review did not include the 14:21:13 19 Plaintiff's MRI's results do not preclude the ALJ from 14:21:27 20 assigning Dr. Wassef's opinion significant weight, 14:21:29 21 especially in light of the other evidence in the 14:21:32 22 record." 14:21:39 23 astounding. 14:21:43 24 record, the impression portion states (1) unremarkable 14:21:47 25 MRI of the cervical spine; (2) mild to moderate One of the issues he brings up I note that there And the Court wrote, "Similarly, it was not Dr. Wassef personally examined Given these In this case here, the MRI results are not As I mentioned earlier, at page 276 in the 4 Case 1:19-cv-01181-MJP Document 17 Filed 03/15/21 Page 7 of 10 1 5 M. DENNIS VS. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 14:21:52 2 degenerative changes at the L3-L4, L4-L5 and L5-S1 14:22:00 3 levels. 14:22:01 4 14:22:06 5 don't think it was error for the ALJ to credit Dr. 14:22:12 6 Miller's opinion and give it great weight. 14:22:17 7 other highly specified portions seem to rely in part on 14:22:21 8 Dr. Ruiz's medical source statement at pages 603 through 14:22:30 9 611 of the record in which he commented on the 14:22:35 10 Plaintiff's ability to climb ramps and stairs, 14:22:38 11 balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling. 14:22:43 12 opined concerning environmental limitations. 14:22:47 13 case of the ALJ's residual functioning capacity, the ALJ 14:22:53 14 went a little further than Dr. Ruiz did, and that is 14:22:56 15 probably why the ALJ did not give full weight to Dr. 14:23:02 16 Ruiz's statement. 14:23:05 17 that the ALJ's determination of Dr. Miller's opinion and 14:23:09 18 his RFC do have substantial support in the record. 14:23:13 19 With regard to the stress issue, Plaintiff 14:23:16 20 states that the ALJ erred in improperly accounting for 14:23:21 21 stress. 14:23:24 22 Herb v. The Commissioner of Social Security, 366 F. Sup 14:23:30 23 3d 441, Western District of New York 2019, she wrote, 14:23:35 24 "The Court is cognizant that even without explicitly 14:23:53 25 referencing a stress limitation, an RFC determination So, based on the authority in Wright, I Further, the He And in the So based on those things, I think And as I noted earlier in Judge Wolford's case, Case 1:19-cv-01181-MJP Document 17 Filed 03/15/21 Page 8 of 10 1 M. DENNIS VS. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 14:24:04 2 may adequately account for a claimant's stress related 14:24:08 3 limitations. 14:24:12 4 to occasional interaction with coworkers in the public 14:24:15 5 and to the performance of simple routine tasks may 14:24:19 6 account for the Plaintiff's stress-related limitations." 14:24:22 7 And then she goes on to cite other cases Ridosh v. 14:24:28 8 Berryhill, 2018 Westlaw 617, 1713, a 2018 Western 14:24:36 9 District of New York case on November 26. 14:24:44 10 Moxham v. The Commissioner, 2018 Westlaw 1175210, at 14:24:49 11 page 10, a Northern District of New York, March 5, 2018 14:24:53 12 case, in which that court found limitation to simple 14:24:57 13 tasks and instructions, decisions on simple work-related 14:25:00 14 matters, and frequent interaction with others adequately 14:25:04 15 accounted for the Plaintiff's stress-related 14:25:07 16 limitations. 14:25:13 17 Colvin, 2016 Westlaw 4154280 at page 13, Western 14:25:32 18 District of New York, August 5, 2016, in which that 14:25:36 19 court wrote, "The RFC, which explicitly required 14:25:40 20 positions in unskilled work which did not require any 14:25:56 21 contact with coworkers or the public and only limited 14:26:20 22 contact with supervisors adequately accounted for any 14:26:25 23 limitations dealing with stress." 14:26:30 24 with regard to stress, the ALJ limited the claimant to 14:26:34 25 simple routine tasks with no more than occasional For example, an RFC limiting a Plaintiff See also And further cited Cosme, C-o-s-m-e, v. In this case here, 6 Case 1:19-cv-01181-MJP Document 17 Filed 03/15/21 Page 9 of 10 1 7 M. DENNIS VS. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 14:26:39 2 workplace changes. He should have no more than 14:26:42 3 occasional interaction with coworkers, supervisors and 14:26:55 4 the public." 14:26:59 5 testified concerning panic attacks, but as the 14:27:02 6 Commissioner's attorney pointed out, those are not 14:27:05 7 substantiated in the record, so we know that the ALJ did 14:27:09 8 listen to the testimony of the Complainant and where it 14:27:12 9 was verified, gave the Complainant additional 14:27:16 10 restrictions. 14:27:19 11 verified, did not. 14:27:20 12 14:27:22 13 Commissioner's residual functional capacity decision is 14:27:26 14 supported by substantial evidence in the record. 14:27:29 15 therefore, I grant the Commissioner's motion for 14:27:31 16 judgment on the pleadings and deny the Plaintiff's 14:27:34 17 motion on judgment on the pleadings. 14:27:36 18 Commissioner to draft an settle and order with 14:27:42 19 Plaintiff's counsel. 14:27:44 20 the transcript just of this portion of the decision. 14:27:47 21 14:27:50 22 the clerk to enter judgment for the Commissioner and 14:27:52 23 close the case. 14:27:57 24 MR. ROONEY: 14:27:58 25 MS. FERNANDEZ: And counsel mentioned that the Plaintiff And where he found that it was not Overall then, I think that the And, I direct the And attach and reference a copy of Thank you very much, counsel. Thank you. Thank you. I also direct Case 1:19-cv-01181-MJP Document 17 Filed 03/15/21 Page 10 of 10 1 2 * 3 * * CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 4 5 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript 6 of the record of proceedings in the above-entitled 7 matter. 8 S/ Karen J. Clark, 9 Official Court Reporter 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RPR 8
]]>
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.
