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.

Weathers v. Colvin

United States District Court, N.D. New York

January 17, 2017

ARNECCA WEATHERS, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant.

          LACHMAN & GORTON, PETER A. GORTON, ESQ., Attorneys for Plaintiff.

          SOCIAL SECURITY, ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF REGIONAL GENERAL COUNSEL - REGION II, HEETANO SHAMSOONDAR, ESQ., Attorneys for Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

          Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. Senior United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Arnecca Weathers brought this action pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“Act”), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”), denying her application for benefits. See generally Dkt. Nos. 1, 18. Pending before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. Nos. 18, 22.

         II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff protectively applied for benefits[1] on March 30, 2010, alleging disability as of May 31, 2008. See Administrative Record (“AR”) at 96. The Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's applications on August 16, 2010. See Id. at 110. Plaintiff filed a timely request for a hearing on September 10, 2010. See id. at 121. A video hearing was held on June 23, 2011, before Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth W. Koennecke (“ALJ”). See id. at 51. Attorney Peter Gorton represented Plaintiff at the hearing. See id.

         On August 17, 2011, the ALJ issued a written decision in which she made the following findings “[a]fter careful consideration of the entire record . . . .”

1) Plaintiff has not “engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 31, 2008, the alleged onset date.”
2) Plaintiff “has the following severe impairments: an adjustment disorder.”
3) Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1.”
4) Plaintiff “has the residual functional capacity to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional limitations: should not work with dangerous or hazardous equipment or conditions or be exposed to respiratory irritants, the [Plaintiff] retains the ability (on a sustained basis) to frequently understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions; to frequently respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and usual work situations; and to frequently deal with changes in a routine work setting.”
5) Plaintiff “has no past relevant work.”
6) “Considering the [Plaintiff's] age, education, work experience, and residual functional capacity, there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the [Plaintiff] can perform.”
7) Plaintiff “has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, since May 31, 2008, through the date of this decision.”

See id. at 54-63 (citations omitted).

         The ALJ's decision became the Commissioner's final decision on October 21, 2012, when the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration denied Plaintiff's request for review. See Id. at 1-5. Plaintiff then commenced an action in this District, and the court remanded her case to the ALJ due to legal error. See Id. at 925-26; see Weathers v. Colvin, No. 3:12-CV-1667 (finding error in the ALJ's handling of Plaintiff's seizure disorder).

         In the intervening time, Plaintiff filed a subsequent application for benefits on October 26, 2012; and, upon remand, the Appeals Council directed the consolidation of Plaintiff's original and new application for benefits. See AR at 952. A video hearing was held on June 16, 2014, before the ALJ. See Id. at 867. A supplemental hearing was held on September 8, 2014. See Id. Attorneys Peter Gorton and Dorollo Nixon, Jr. represented Plaintiff at these hearings. See id.

         On February 10, 2015, the ALJ issued her second written decision in which she made the following findings “[a]fter careful consideration of the entire record . . . .”

1) Plaintiff has not “engaged in substantial gainful activity since May 31, 2008, the alleged onset date.”
2) Plaintiff “has the following severe impairments: a seizure disorder and a mental impairment (variously characterized).”
3) Plaintiff “does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR ...

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.