United States District Court, N.D. New York
THE PLAINTIFF: Office of Mark A. Schneider.
THE DEFENDANTS: HON. RICHARD S. HARTUNIAN United States
Attorney, Steven P. Conte Regional Chief Counsel.
COUNSEL: MARK A. SCHNEIDER, ESQ. KRISTINA D. COHN Special
Assistant U.S. Attorney.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
L. SHARPE, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
Tammie Boyer 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). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After reviewing the
administrative record and carefully considering Boyer's
arguments, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed.
March 30, 2012, Boyer filed applications for DIB and SSI
under the Social Security Act (“the Act”).
at 165, 166, 259-69.) After her applications were denied,
(id. at 170-77), Boyer requested a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), (id. at 182-87),
which was held on March 28, 2014 and continued on July 17,
2014, (id. at 27-88). At the March 2014 hearing,
Boyer amended her disability onset date to April 19, 2011 and
withdrew her DIB application. (Id. at 51-55.) On
July 29, 2014, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision finding
Boyer ineligible for SSI and denying the requested benefits,
(id. at 9-26), which became the Commissioner's
final determination upon the Appeals Council's denial of
review, (id. at 1-6).
commenced this action by filing her complaint on January 12,
2016 wherein she sought review of the Commissioner's
determination. (See generally 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.
contends that the Commissioner's decision is tainted by
legal error and is not supported by substantial evidence.
(Dkt. No. 13 at 21-35.) Boyer asserts that the ALJ erred by
not finding that her impairments met listing 12.04 or 12.06.
(Id. at 29-31.) Next, Boyer argues that the ALJ
failed to properly weigh the opinion of her treating
psychiatrist. (Id. at 21-29.) Additionally, Boyer
contends the ALJ erred by failing to credit her testimony.
(Id. at 31-34.) Finally, Boyer submits that the ALJ
erred by presenting the vocational expert (VE) with an
inaccurate hypothetical residual functional capacity (RFC).
(Id. at 34-35.) In response, the Commissioner
asserts that the ALJ's decision is legally sound and
supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 14 at 2-17.)
court adopts the undisputed factual recitations of the
parties and the ALJ. (Dkt. No. 13 at 2-18; Dkt. No. 14 at 1;
Tr. at 15-21.)