United States District Court, N.D. New York
LOUISE MARIE TARANTINO, ESQ., Albany, NY, for Plaintiff.
TOMASINA DIGRIGOLI, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN, United States Attorney, Syracuse, NY, Steven P. Conte, Regional Chief Counsel, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, Region II, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
GARY L. SHARPE, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Amanda Webb o/b/o K.S. challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After reviewing the administrative record and carefully considering Webb's arguments, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision and dismisses the complaint.
On May 25, 2010, Webb filed an application for SSI under the Social Security Act ("the Act") on behalf of her son, a minor, alleging disability since October 10, 2008. (Tr. at 80, 119-22.) After her application was denied, ( id. at 81-84), Webb requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on November 16, 2011, ( id. at 43-79, 85-87). On February 24, 2012, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision denying the requested benefits which became the Commissioner's final determination upon the Social Security Administration Appeals Council's denial of review. ( Id. at 1-6, 15-42.)
Webb commenced the present action by filing her complaint on June 24, 2013 wherein she sought review of the Commissioner's determination. (Compl.) The Commissioner filed an answer and a certified copy of the administrative transcript. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 9.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. (Dkt. Nos. 13, 21.)
Webb contends that the Commissioner's decision is tainted by legal error and is not supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 13 at 19-25.) Specifically, Webb claims that the ALJ erred in finding that K.S.'s impairments are not functionally equivalent to a listed impairment. ( Id. ) The Commissioner counters that the appropriate legal standards were used by the ALJ and his decision is also supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 21 at 5-12.)
The court adopts the parties' undisputed factual recitations. (Dkt. No. 13 at 2-18; Dkt. No. 21 at 2.)
V. Standard of Review
The standard for reviewing the Commissioner's final decision under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) 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). Similarly, for a full discussion of the three-step analysis used by the Social Security Administration to determine whether individuals under the age of eighteen are disabled, the court refers ...