Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Scialdone v. Berryhill

United States District Court, W.D. New York

August 23, 2017




         On June 27, 2016, Zachary M. Scialdone ("Scialdone") brought this action pursuant to the Social Security Act ("the Act") seeking review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("the Commissioner") that denied his applications for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Act. ECF No. 1. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3).

         On July 19, 2017, the Court granted counsel's motion to substitute party due to Scialdone's sudden death on June 24, 2016. ECF No. 19. Accordingly, Scialdone's father, Gary Scialdone ("Plaintiff), is now the plaintiff in this matter.

         Both parties have moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). ECF Nos. 12, 13. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED and the Commissioner's motion is DENIED. The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED solely for calculation and payment of benefits.


         On March 4 and 28, 2013, Scialdone applied for DIB and SSI with the Social Security Administration ("the SSA"). Tr.[2] 165-72. He alleged disability since April 1, 2011 due to depression and attention deficit disorder ("ADD"). Tr. 198. On October 21, 2014, Scialdone, Plaintiff, and a vocational expert ("VE") testified at a hearing via videoconference before Administrative Law Judge James G. Myles ("the ALJ"). Tr. 45-72. On November 19, 2014, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Scialdone was not disabled within the meaning of the Act. Tr. 31-41. On May 2, 2016, the Appeals Council denied Scialdone's request for review. Tr. 1-7. Thereafter, Scialdone commenced this action seeking review of the Commissioner's final decision. ECF No. 1.


         I. District Court Review

         "In reviewing a final decision of the SSA, this Court is limited to determining whether the SSA's conclusions were supported by substantial evidence in the record and were based on a correct legal standard." Talavera v. Astrue, 697 F.3d 145, 151 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Act holds that a decision by the Commissioner is "conclusive" if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). "Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Moron v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 108, 112 (2d Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). It is not the Court's function to "determine de novo whether [the claimant] is disabled." Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 501 (2d Cir. 1998) (quotation marks omitted); see also Wagner v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 906 F.2d 856, 860 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding that review of the Secretary's decision is not de novo and that the Secretary's findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence).

         II. Disability Determination

         An ALJ must follow a five-step sequential evaluation to determine whether a claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Act. See Parker v. City of New York, 476 U.S. 467, 470-71 (1986). At step one, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant is engaged in substantial gainful work activity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(b). If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the ALJ proceeds to step two and determines whether the claimant has an impairment, or combination of impairments, that is "severe" within the meaning of the Act, meaning that it imposes significant restrictions on the claimant's ability to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c). If the claimant does not have a severe impairment or combination of impairments, the analysis concludes with a finding of "not disabled." If the claimant does, the ALJ continues to step three.

         At step three, the ALJ examines whether a claimant's impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a listed impairment in Appendix 1 of Subpart P of Regulation No. 4 (the "Listings"). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(d). If the impairment meets or medically equals the criteria of a Listing and meets the durational requirement (20 C.F.R. § 404.1509), the claimant is disabled. If not, the ALJ determines the claimant's residual functional capacity ("RFC"), which is the ability to perform physical or mental work activities on a sustained basis, notwithstanding limitations for the collective impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 4O4.l52O(e)-(f).

         The ALJ then proceeds to step four and determines whether the claimant's RFC permits him or her to perform the requirements of his or her past relevant work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f). If the claimant can perform such requirements, then he or she is not disabled. If he or she cannot, the analysis proceeds to the fifth and final step, wherein the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that the claimant is not disabled. To do so, the Commissioner must present evidence to demonstrate that the claimant "retains a residual functional capacity to perform alternative substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy" in light of his or her age, education, and work experience. See Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c).


         I. The ALJ's Decision

         The ALJ's decision analyzed Scialdone's claim for benefits under the process described above. At step one, the ALJ found that Scialdone had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date. Tr. 33. At step two, the ALJ found that Scialdone has the following severe impairments: depression, ADD, and substance use disorder. Tr. 33-34. At step three, the ALJ found that these impairments, alone or in combination, did not meet or medically equal any Listings impairment. Tr. 34-35.

         Next, the ALJ determined that Scialdone retained the RFC to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with nonexertional limitations. Tr. 35-39. Specifically, the ALJ found that Scialdone is limited to routine, unskilled work with only occasional interpersonal contact and cannot work with the public or in teams. Tr. 35.

         At step four, the ALJ indicated that Scialdone has no past relevant work. Tr. 39. At step five, the ALJ relied on the VE's testimony and found that Scialdone can adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy given his RFC, age of 21-years-old on the alleged onset date, high school education, and work experience. Tr. 40-41. Specifically, the VE testified that Scialdone could work as a linen room attendant, routing ...

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.