Filed: Jan. 31, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER GARY L. SHARPE, Chief Judge. I. Introduction Plaintiff Andrea Perry challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). 1 ( See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Upon reviewing the administrative record and carefully considering the arguments, the Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded. II. Background On, June 9, 2008, Perry filed an application
Summary: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER GARY L. SHARPE, Chief Judge. I. Introduction Plaintiff Andrea Perry challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). 1 ( See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Upon reviewing the administrative record and carefully considering the arguments, the Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded. II. Background On, June 9, 2008, Perry filed an application ..
More
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
GARY L. SHARPE, Chief Judge.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Andrea Perry challenges the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and seeks judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).1 (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Upon reviewing the administrative record and carefully considering the arguments, the Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded.
II. Background
On, June 9, 2008, Perry filed an application for SSI under the Social Security Act (the Act), alleging disability since March 15, 2008. (Tr.2 at 5.) After her application was denied, Perry requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which was held on March 3, 2010 and June 10, 2010. (Id. at 21-39, 40-59, 76-77.) On July 28, 2010, the ALJ issued a decision denying the requested benefits, which became the Commissioner's final decision upon the Social Security Administration Appeals Council's denial of review. (Id. at 5-15, 60-62.)
Perry commenced the present action by filing a complaint on January 21, 2011, seeking review of the Commissioner's determination. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) The Commissioner filed an answer and a certified copy of the administrative transcript. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.) Each party, seeking judgment on the pleadings, filed a brief. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 12.)
III. Contentions
Perry contends that the Commissioner's decision is not supported by substantial evidence or the appropriate legal standards. Specifically, Perry claims the ALJ: (1) erred when he found Perry did not meet listing 12.05(C); (2) improperly considered Perry's non-exertional impairment; and (3) failed to adequately consider the opinion of Perry's treating physician. (See Dkt. No. 9 at 6-12.) The Commissioner counters that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision. (See generally Dkt. No. 12.)
IV. Facts
The evidence in this case is undisputed and the court adopts the parties' factual recitations. (See Dkt. No. 9 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 12 at 1-12.)
V. Standard of Review
The standard for reviewing the Commissioner's final decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is well established and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the standard and the five-step process used by the 3Commissioner in evaluating whether a claimant is disabled under the Act, the court refers the parties to its previous opinion in Christiana v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:05-CV-932, 2008 WL 759076, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2008).
VI. Discussion
Perry's arguments almost exclusively rely on an opinion rendered by Dr. David Frey.3 (See Dkt. No. 9 at 6-9; see also Tr. at 367-69.) However, as the Commissioner aptly notes, this opinion was rendered on August 17, 2010, roughly three weeks after the ALJ issued his decision. (See Tr. at 15, 368; Dkt. No. 12 at 21.) Nevertheless, this evidence was received by the Appeals Council. (Tr. at 63). Thus, to the extent Perry argues that the ALJ erred, the court disagrees. But the inquiry in this case does not end with the ALJ's decision since the Appeals Council's review is also relevant in determining whether the denial of SSI was supported by substantial evidence.4 See Perez v. Chater, 77 F.3d 41, 45 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding "that the new evidence submitted to the Appeals Council following the ALJ's decision becomes part of the administrative record for judicial review when the Appeals Council denies review of the ALJ's decision.").
Here, the Appeals Council's decision is, to say the least, conclusory as there are no specific references to Perry's case or the additional evidence she submitted after the ALJ issued his decision. (See Tr. at 60-62.) Given the potentially dispositive nature of Dr. Frey's opinion,5 the Appeals Council's formulaic response—which fails to address, inter alia, the relevance, if any, that Dr. Frey's opinion had on Perry's SSI application—is grossly insufficient. Because the court "cannot be certain whether or not the Commissioner's ultimate conclusion that [Perry] was not disabled is supported by substantial evidence," the Commissioner's decision is reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings.6 Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 504 (2d Cir. 1998).
B. Remaining Findings and Conclusions
Perry's submissions do not challenge the ALJ's determination of her physical impairment. (See generally Dkt. No. 9.) Accordingly, the court, after carefully reviewing the record, affirms the ALJ's determination of Perry's physical impairment as it is supported by substantial evidence.7
VII. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for proceedings consistent with this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case and provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
