Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Jason Cadrette v. Michael J. Astrue
April 24, 2012
JASON CADRETTE, PLAINTIFF,
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
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.
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,
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.)
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.)
The court adopts the parties' undisputed factual recitations. (See id. at 1-11; Dkt. No. 12 at 3-5.)
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).
Buy This Entire Record For