United States District Court, N.D. New York
Lachman, Gorton Law Firm, PETER A. GORTON, ESQ., Endicott, NY, for the Plaintiff.
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN, United States Attorney, JEREMY A. LINDEN, KRISTINA D. COHN, Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Syracuse, NY, Steven P. Conte, Regional Chief Counsel, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel, Region II New York, NY, for the Defendant.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
GARY L. SHARPE, District Judge.
Plaintiff Michael Ingraham 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 Ingraham's arguments, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision and dismisses the complaint.
On June 21, 2010, Ingraham filed an application for SSI under the
Social Security Act ("the Act"), alleging disability since December 31, 1995. (Tr. at 45, 100-03.) After his application was denied, ( id. at 46-49), Ingraham requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on January 31, 2012, ( id. 30-44, 52-55). On March, 1, 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 1-7, 10-29.)
Ingraham commenced the present action by filing his complaint on May 14, 2013 wherein he 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, 18.)
Ingraham contends that the Commissioner's decision is tainted by legal error and is not supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 13 at 12-24.) Specifically, Ingraham claims that the ALJ erred in applying the treating physician rule and assessing the opinions of the examining and non-examining medical sources. ( Id. ) The Commissioner counters that the appropriate legal standards were used by the ALJ and her decision is also supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 18 at 15-20.)
The court adopts the parties' undisputed factual recitations. (Dkt. No. 13 at ...