Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Candy Shatraw, O/B/O K.C.Y., Iii v. Michael Astrue

February 22, 2012

CANDY SHATRAW, O/B/O K.C.Y., III, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Candy Shatraw o/b/o K.C.Y., III ("KCY"), challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income ("SSI"),*fn1 seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g). (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After reviewing the administrative record and carefully considering the arguments, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision.

II. Background

On October 10, 2007, Shatraw protectively filed an application on behalf of KCY for SSI under the Social Security Act ("Act"), alleging disability since October 1, 2006. (Tr.*fn2 at 95.) After the application was denied, Shatraw requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on January 13, 2010. (Id. at 26-50.) On January 29, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision denying the requested benefits, which became the Commissioner's final decision upon the Social Security Administration Appeals Council's denial of review. (Id. at 12-25, 1-3.)

Shatraw commenced the present action by filing a complaint on January 5, 2011, seeking review of the Commissioner's determination. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) The Commissioner filed an answer and a certified copy of the administrative transcript. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 15.)

III. Contentions

Shatraw avers that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and was arrived at through the application of incorrect legal standards. (Dkt. No. 12 at 9-14.) In addition to her general argument that the Commissioner's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence, Shatraw contends specifically that the ALJ: (1) did not sufficiently specify his reasons for finding less than marked limitation in two functional domains; and (2) failed to consider how KCY functions outside of his supportive setting. (Id.) The Commissioner counters that the appropriate legal standards were applied and that the decision is supported by substantial evidence. (See generally Dkt. No. 15.)

IV. Facts

The evidence in this case is undisputed and the court adopts the parties' factual recitations. (See Dkt. No. 12 at 1-9; Dkt. No. 15 at 1-13.)

V. Standard of Review

The standard for reviewing the Commissioner's final decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is well established and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the standard of review, the court refers the parties to its previous opinion in Christiana v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:05-CV-932, 2008 WL 759076, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2008).

VI. Discussion

A. Child Disability ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.