United States District Court, N.D. New York
OF PETER MARGOLIUS PETER MARGOLIUS, ESQ. Counsel for
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN. OFFICE OF REG'L GEN. COUNSEL -
REGION II Counsel for Defendant
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
William B. Mitchell Carter U.S. Magistrate Judge
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. 15, 16.).
before the Court, in this Social Security action filed by
Dorothy Claire Houle Call (“Plaintiff”) against
the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”
or “the Commissioner”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), are the parties'
cross- motions for judgment on the pleadings. (Dkt. Nos. 9,
12.) For the reasons set forth below, it is ordered that
Plaintiff's motion is denied and Defendant's motion
was born in 1966. (T. 248.) She completed the 9th
grade. (T. 254.) Generally, Plaintiff's alleged
disability consists of addiction, bi-polar disorder, and
obesity. (T. 253.) Her alleged disability onset date is May
8, 2009. (T. 248.) Her date last insured is September 30,
2013. (T. 109.) She previously worked as a house cleaner. (T.
February 5, 2010, Plaintiff applied for a period of
Disability Insurance Benefits (“SSD”) under Title
II, and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”)
under Title XVI, of the Social Security Act. (T. 248.)
Plaintiff's applications were initially denied, after
which she timely requested a hearing before an Administrative
Law Judge (“the ALJ”). On August 22, 2014,
Plaintiff appeared before the ALJ, Arthur Patane. (T. 40-62.)
On October 23, 2014, ALJ Patane issued an unfavorable
decision. (T. 19-39.) On June 13, 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.
The ALJ's Decision
in his decision, the ALJ made the following findings of fact
and conclusions of law. (T. 24-33.) First, the ALJ found that
Plaintiff met the insured status requirements through
September 30, 2013, and Plaintiff had not engaged in
substantial gainful activity since May 7, 2011, her
established onset date. (T. 24.) Second, the ALJ found that
since the alleged onset date Plaintiff had the severe
impairments of affective disorder, alcohol abuse in
remission, and marijuana abuse. (Id.) Third, the ALJ
found that since her alleged onset date Plaintiff did not
have an impairment that meets or medically equals one of the
listed impairments located in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P,
Appendix. 1. (T. 26-28.) Fourth, the ALJ found Plaintiff had
the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) to
perform work at all exertional levels; however, Plaintiff
could have “semi-low contact with coworkers and public,
defined as having frequent, but not constant
interaction.” (T. 28.) Fifth, the ALJ determined that
Plaintiff was capable of performing her past relevant work as
a house/business cleaner as generally and actually performed.
THE PARTIES' BRIEFINGS ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
makes one argument in support of her motion for judgment on
the pleadings. Plaintiff argues the ALJ's RFC
determination is not supported by substantial evidence in ...