United States District Court, N.D. New York
AMY M. GRENIER, Plaintiff,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, as Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Office of Peter W. Antonowicz, PETER W. ANTONOWICZ, ESQ., Rome, NY, for the Plaintiff.
HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN, United States Attorney, KAREN T. CALLAHAN, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Syracuse, NY, for the Defendant.
Steven P. Conte, Regional Chief Counsel, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel, Region II, New York, NY.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
GARY L. SHARPE, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff Amy M Grenier challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After reviewing the administrative record and carefully considering Grenier's arguments, the Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded.
On February 8 and February 23, 2010, Grenier filed applications for SSI and DIB under the Social Security Act ("the Act"), respectively, alleging disability since October 18, 2009. (Tr. at 119, 126, 244-54.) After her applications were denied, ( id. at 157-62), Grenier requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on March 23, 2011, ( id. at 40-84, 163). On June 23, 2011, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision finding that Monroe was not disabled. ( Id. at 133-49.) At Grenier's request, the Social Security Administration Appeals Council remanded the case back to the ALJ, who, after a second administrative hearing, again denied Grenier's claim. ( Id. at 15-39, 85-118, 150-54, 187.) That decision became the final decision of the Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied Grenier's request for review. ( Id. at 1-5.)
Grenier commenced the present action by filing her complaint on April 29, 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. 9, 10.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. (Dkt. Nos. 14, 17.)
Grenier contends that the Commissioner's decision is tainted by legal error and is not supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 14 at 14-26.) Specifically, Grenier claims that the ALJ erred in: (1) determining her residual functional capacity (RFC); and (2) evaluating the credibility of her subjective complaints. ( 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. 17 at 7-18.)
The court adopts the parties' undisputed factual recitations. (Dkt. No. 14 at ...