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.

Jason Cadrette v. Michael J. Astrue

April 24, 2012

JASON CADRETTE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, AS 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 Jason Cadrette 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 Cadrette's arguments, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision and dismisses the Complaint.

II. Background

On October 26, 2007, Cadrette, who suffers from, among other things, a right shoulder ailment and affective mood disorder, filed an application for SSI under the Social Security Act ("the Act"), alleging disability since January 5, 2007. (See Tr.*fn2 at 15, 119-25, 128.) After his application was denied, (see id. at 83-87), Cadrette requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on June 8, 2009. (See id. at 22-81, 88-90.) On December 22, 2009, the ALJ issued a decision denying the requested benefits, which became the Commissioner's final determination upon the Social Security Administration Appeals Council's denial of review. (See id. at 1-4, 9-21.)

Cadrette commenced the present action by filing a complaint on March 22, 2011 wherein he sought review of the Commissioner's determination. (See generally Compl.) The Commissioner filed an answer and a certified copy of the administrative transcript. (See Dkt. Nos. 8, 9.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. (See Dkt. Nos. 12, 15.)

III. Contentions

Cadrette contends that the Commissioner's decision is tainted by errors of law. (See Dkt. No. 12 at 8-16.) Specifically, Cadrette claims that the ALJ: (1) committed error in determining his residual functional capacity (RFC); and (2) improperly assessed his credibility regarding non-exertional limitations. (See id.) The Commissioner counters that the appropriate legal standards were used by the ALJ and her decision is also supported by substantial evidence. (See Dkt. No. 15 at 14-22.)

IV. Facts

The court adopts the parties' undisputed factual recitations. (See id. at 1-11; Dkt. No. 12 at 3-5.)

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 and the five-step process by which the Commissioner evaluates whether a claimant is disabled under the Act, 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. RFC ...


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.