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.

Call v. Commissioner of Social Security

United States District Court, N.D. New York

May 16, 2017

DOROTHY CLAIRE HOULE CALL, Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

          OFFICE OF PETER MARGOLIUS PETER MARGOLIUS, ESQ. Counsel for Plaintiff

          U.S. 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

         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. 15, 16.).

         Currently 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 is granted.

         I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         Plaintiff 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. 254.)

         B. Procedural History

         On 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.

         C. The ALJ's Decision

         Generally, 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.)[1] 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. (T. 33.)

         II. THE PARTIES' BRIEFINGS ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

         A. Plaintiff's Arguments

         Plaintiff 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 ...


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.