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.

M.L.D.v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, N.D. New York

April 27, 2017

M.L.D. a minor, by ERICA CURRY, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant.

          LAW OFFICE OF PETER MARGOLIUS Counsel for Plaintiff.

          U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN. OFFICE OF REG'L GEN. COUNSEL-REGION II Counsel for Defendant.

          OF COUNSEL: PETER MARGOLIUS, ESQ. FERGUS KAISER, ESQ.

          MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM B. MITCHELL CARTER, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE,

         This matter was referred to me, for all proceedings and entry of a final judgment, pursuant to the Social Security Pilot Program, N.D.N.Y. General Order No. 18, and in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 73.1 and the consent of the parties. (Dkt. Nos. 12, 14.)

         Currently before the Court, in this Social Security action filed by Erica Curry (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of her minor son, M.L.D. (“Claimant”) against the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “the Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), are the parties' cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 10.) For the reasons set forth below, it is ordered that Plaintiff's motion be denied and Defendant's motion be granted.

         I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         At the time of filing and at the time of his hearing, Claimant was an adolescent. (T. 15); 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(g)(2). Claimant alleged disability consists of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), hearing loss, and a learning disorder. (T. 176.)

         B. Procedural History

         On January 4, 2013, Plaintiff applied for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act on Claimant's behalf. (T. 73.) Plaintiff's application was initially denied, after which she timely requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“the ALJ”). On July 8, 2014 Plaintiff and Claimant appeared before the ALJ, Michelle S. Marcus. (T. 47-72.) On August 27, 2014, ALJ Marcus issued a written decision finding Claimant not disabled under the Social Security Act. (T. 9-29.) On March 25, 2016, the Appeals Council (“AC”) denied Plaintiff's request for review, rendering the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. (T. 1-6.) Thereafter, Plaintiff timely sought judicial review in this Court.

         C. The ALJ's Decision

         Generally, in her decision, the ALJ made the following six findings of fact and conclusions of law. First, the ALJ found that Claimant was an “adolescent” at the time of filing and as “adolescent” at the time of the hearing pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.926a(g)(2). (T. 15.) Second, the ALJ found that Claimant had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the application date. (Id.) Third, the ALJ found that Claimant suffered from the severe impairments of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), oppositional defiance disorder (“ODD”), and borderline intellectual functioning. (Id.) Fourth, the ALJ found that Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix I (“the Listings”). (T. 16.) Fifth, the ALJ found that Claimant did not have an impairment or combination of impairments that functionally equaled an impairment set forth in the Listings. (T. 16-25.) Sixth, and finally, the ALJ concluded Claimant had not been disabled, as defined by the Social Security Act, since January 4, 2013, the date his application was filed. (T. 25.)

         II. THE PARTIES' BRIEFINGS

         A. Plaintiff's Arguments

         Generally, in support of her motion for judgment on the pleadings, Plaintiff makes three arguments. First, Plaintiff argues the ALJ's determination that Claimant had less than a marked limitation in the domain of “Acquiring and Using Information” was not supported by substantial evidence. (Dkt. No. 9 at 3-4 [Pl.'s Mem. of Law].) Second, Plaintiff argues the ALJ's determination that Claimant had less than a marked limitation in the domain of “Attending and Completing Tasks” was not supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at 4-5.) Third, and lastly, Plaintiff argues the ALJ's determination that Claimant had less than a marked limitation in the domain of “Interacting and Relating with Others” was not supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at 5-6.)

         B. Defendant's Argument

         Generally, in support of her cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, Defendant makes three arguments. First, Defendant argues substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that Claimant had a less than marked limitation in the domain of “Acquiring and Using Information.” (Dkt. No. 10 at 6-9 [Def.'s Mem. of Law].) Second, Defendant argues substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that Claimant had a less than marked limitation in the domain of “Attending and Completing Tasks.” (Id. at 9-10.) Third, and lastly, Defendant argues substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that Claimant had a less than marked limitation in the domain of “Interacting and Relating with Others.” (Id. at 10-12.)

         III. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARD

         A court reviewing a denial of disability benefits may not determine de novo whether an individual is disabled. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3); Wagner v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 906 F.2d 856, 860 (2d Cir. 1990). Rather, the Commissioner's determination will only be reversed if the correct legal standards were not applied, or it was not supported by substantial evidence. See Johnson v. Bowen, 817 F.2d 983, 986 (2d Cir. 1987) (“Where there is a reasonable basis for doubt whether the ALJ applied correct legal principles, application of the substantial evidence standard to uphold a finding of no disability creates an unacceptable risk that a claimant will be deprived of the right to have ...


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.