Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: October 10, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00985
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________

DESIREE S.,

Plaintiff, vs. 3:22-CV-985 (MAD/DEP) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ____________________________________________

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

OLINSKY LAW GROUP CHELSEA WILLIAMS RENGEL, ESQ. 250 South Clinton Street, Suite 210 HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ. Syracuse, New York 13202 Attorneys for Plaintiff

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN. GEOFFREY M. PETERS, ESQ. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235 Attorneys for Defendant

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:

ORDER

On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff Desiree S. applied for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, alleging disability beginning on April 16, 2013. See Dkt. No. 10 at 1. Plaintiff's application was denied initially, and she requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). On September 8, 2017, ALJ Elizabeth W. Koennecke issued a written decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act and denying Plaintiff's claim for benefits. See Dkt. No. 9 at 11. On August 21, 2019, the Social Security Appeals Council ("Appeals Council") vacated and remanded ALJ Koennecke's decision for further consideration. See id. On October 1, 2019, ALJ Koennecke issued a second unfavorable decision, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant period and not entitled to SSI. See id. The Appeals Council vacated and remanded ALK Koennecke's second decision on February 10, 2021, and directed that it be assigned to a different ALJ. See id. On June 16, 2021, ALJ Kenneth Theurer held an administrative hearing, following which ALJ Theurer issued an unfavorable decision, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled during the relevant time period. See id. On July 25, 2022, ALJ Theurer's decision became the Commissioner's final decision when the

Appeals Council denied Plaintiff's request for review. See id. at 1. On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) seeking review of the Commissioner's decision. See Dkt. No. 10 at 5. In a Report-Recommendation dated September 8, 2023 (the "Report-Recommendation"), Magistrate Judge Peebles recommended (1) Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted; (2) Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied; and (3) the Commissioner's decision be remanded for further proceedings, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Dkt. No. 19. Neither party has filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. When a party declines to file objections to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation or files "[g]eneral or conclusory

objections or objections which merely recite the same arguments presented to the magistrate judge," the district court reviews those recommendations for clear error. O'Diah v. Mawhir, No. 9:08-CV-322, 2011 WL 933846, *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011) (citations and footnote omitted); see also McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). "When performing such a 'clear error' review, 'the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Canady v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:17- CV-0367, 2017 WL 5484663, *1 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2017) (quotation and citations omitted). After the appropriate review, "[T]he court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court does not discern any clear error in the Report-Recommendation. As Magistrate Judge Peebles found, remand is warranted in this case because ALJ Theurer (1) placed disproportionate weight on Plaintiff's lack of medical treatment, see Kelly Ann G. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-CV-1013, 2022 WL 160266, *9 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2022) ("[f]aulting a person

with diagnosed mental illness for failing to pursue mental health treatment is a 'questionable practice'") (quoting Schlichting v. Astrue, 11 F. Supp. 3d 190, 207 (N.D.N.Y. 2012)); and (2) failed to conduct a proper assessment, with sufficient reasons supported by substantial evidence, of Plaintiff's subjective reports of symptoms in accordance with the applicable regulations. See Dkt. No. 10. Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the Report-Recommendation, the entire record in this matter, and the applicable law, the Court hereby ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Peeble's September 8, 2023 Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 16) is ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated herein; and the Court further ORDERS that the Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED; and

the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision denying disability benefits is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with this Order and Magistrate Judge Peeble's Report-Recommendation; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and close this case; and the Court further ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT ISSO ORDERED.

Nr Lad Diigiths aL D lie, U.S. District Judge