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.

Reed v. Colvin

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 24, 2015

RICHARD REED, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

PETER W. ANTONOWICZ, ESQ., Office of Peter W. Antonowicz, Rome, NY, For the Plaintiff

Sandra M. Grossfeld, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN, United States Attorney, Syracuse, NY, 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 District Judge.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Richard Reed challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB), seeking judicial review under 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After reviewing the administrative record and carefully considering Reed's arguments, the court affirms the Commissioner's decision and dismisses the complaint.

II. Background

On February 28, 2011, Reed filed an application for DIB under the Social Security Act ("the Act"), alleging disability since November 11, 2010. (Tr.[1] at 66, 139-45.) After his application was denied, ( id. at 67-70), Reed requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on August 7, 2012, ( id. at 33-59, 73). On October 4, 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, 12-31.)

Reed commenced the present action by filing his complaint on January 13, 2014 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. 8, 9.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. (Dkt. Nos. 15, 18.)

III. Contentions

Reed contends that the Commissioner's decision is tainted by legal error and is not supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 15 at 11-23.) Specifically, Reed claims that the ALJ: (1) erred in determining his residual functional capacity (RFC); and, (2) improperly evaluated his allegations of disabling pain and symptoms. ( 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 6-12.)

IV. Facts

The court incorporates the factual recitations of the parties and the ALJ. ( See generally Dkt. No. 15 at 2-8; ...


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.