United States District Court, N.D. New York
PLAINTIFF: PETER M. HOBAICA, LLC B. BROOKS BENSON, ESQ.
DEFENDANT: HON. GRANT JAQUITH DANIELLA M. CALENZO, ESQ.
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Acting U.S. Attorney.
E. PEEBLES CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
pending before the court in this action, in which plaintiff
seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative
determination by the Acting Commissioner, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), are cross-motions for judgment on the
pleadings. Oral argument was conducted in connection
with those motions on July 25, 2017, during a telephone
conference held on the record. At the close of argument, I
issued a bench decision in which, after applying the
requisite deferential review standard, I found that the
Acting Commissioner's determination did not result from
the application of proper legal principles and is not
supported by substantial evidence, providing further detail
regarding my reasoning and addressing the specific issues
raised by the plaintiff in this appeal.
due deliberation, and based upon the court's oral bench
decision, a transcript of which is attached and incorporated
herein by reference, it is hereby
(1) Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is
(2) The Acting Commissioner's determination that
plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times, and thus is
not entitled to benefits under the Social Security Act, is
(3) The matter is hereby REMANDED to the Acting Commissioner,
without a directed finding of disability, for further
proceedings consistent with this determination.
(4) The clerk is respectfully directed to enter judgment,
based upon this determination, remanding the matter to the
Acting Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) and closing this case.
of a Decision held during a
Digitally-Recorded Telephone Conference on July 25, 2017, at
the James Hanley Federal Building, 100 South Clinton Street,
Syracuse, New York, the HONORABLE DAVID E. PEEBLES, United
States Magistrate Judge, Presiding.
Chambers, Counsel present by telephone.)
COURT: All right. This is an interesting case. I've
reviewed very carefully the parties' submissions, the
record, in particular the many reports of Dr. Davis as well
as the other individuals that have examined plaintiff.
have before me a request for judicial review of an adverse
determination pursuant to 42 ...