arisen, the evidence showed the plaintiff's ability to control his drinking, given his twenty-two month period of abstinence.
The plaintiff further contends that he is eligible for benefits based on a combination of his mental and physical impairments. The plaintiff claims that his memory is impaired and that he sometimes gets paranoid and has panic attacks. He argues that his physical problems, such as his clubbed foot, bronchiectasis and arthritis, some of which he has been hospitalized for, combined with his mental impairments, rise to the level of a disability.
However, there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's conclusion that the plaintiff's impairments are not equal to any listed in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 and that the plaintiff has the residual capacity to perform past relevant work. A Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment, taken May 12, 1992, indicates that the plaintiff is not significantly limited in any area and specifically evaluated his understanding, memory and social interaction. (R. 58-60). The defendant correctly notes that the October 3, 1990 report from United Hospital on which the plaintiff relies, (R. 197), when taken as a whole, does not demonstrate a significant mental problem. (Def.'s Reply Memo. 3-4). The United Hospital Report indicates that the plaintiff's speech was logical and coherent, and, while he did get blackouts and tremulousness from alcohol, he did not have hallucinations, his memory was intact, and he knew his paranoid ideas were just a trick of his mind. (R. 197).
Similarly, the medical reports support the conclusion that the plaintiff is physically able to perform his past work. On April 28, 1992, Dr. Pulver noted that the plaintiff had no restrictions on his residual function and had a full range of motion in all joints and no joint deformity. (R. 235). Dr. McCollester's June 24, 1992 report did note a history of clubbed right foot, an old ankle injury on the right, and marked weakness and instability in the right extremity. (R. at 255-56). However, Dr. Bagner, in his September 21, 1992 examination, stated that the plaintiff had no motor or sensory abnormalities in the upper extremities, normal flexion, extension and lateral flexion in his back, and normal range of movement in his hip and knees. (R. 250-51). He noted that the plaintiff's ankles had less than normal flexion but that he could ambulate without a cane. (R. 251). The plaintiff points to no Appendix 1 listing that is supported in the record, nor do the medical reports support a condition equal to one. There is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's conclusion that the plaintiff can perform past relevant work. Thus, there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's finding that the plaintiff is not disabled under the Social Security Act.
For all of the reasons explained above, the Court finds that the decision of the Commissioner denying SSI benefits to the plaintiff is supported by substantial evidence. Thus defendant's motion for judgment on pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(c), is granted and the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), or alternatively remanding the matter for a new administrative hearing, is denied.
John G. Koeltl
United States District Court Judge
Dated: New York, New York
July 24, 1995