From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Correale-Englehart v. Astrue

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 8, 2010
No. 07 Civ. 3113 (RJS) (MHD) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2010)

Summary

holding that the ALJ should not have relied on an omission in the record in finding that plaintiff was not disabled, as this constituted mere speculation by the ALJ

Summary of this case from McIntosh v. Berryhill

Opinion

No. 07 Civ. 3113 (RJS) (MHD).

February 8, 2010


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On April 18, 2007, Plaintiff Ann Correale-Englehart commenced this suit against Defendant Michael J. Astrue, in his capacity as the Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 1.) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff seeks review of the Commissioner's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. The case was originally assigned to the Honorable Kenneth M. Karas, United States District Judge, who granted Defendant's request for an extension of time to submit an answer. (Doc. No. 2.) Defendant filed his Answer on August 24, 2007. (Doc. No. 3.) On September 4, 2007, this case was reassigned from Judge Karas to the undersigned. (Doc. No. 4.) The parties then submitted cross-motions for judgments on the pleadings (Doc. No. 5; Doc. No. 8), which the Court referred to the Honorable Michael H. Dolinger, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 12).

On September 10, 2009, Judge Dolinger issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff's motion be granted in part, Defendant's cross-motion be denied, and that the case be remanded for further proceedings. (Doc. No. 14.) In an Order dated September 23, 2009, this Court granted Defendant's request for an extension to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 15.) No party has filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Cf. Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298 (2d Cir. 1993).

When no objections to a Report and Recommendation are made, the Court may adopt the Report if there is no clear error on the face of the record. Adee Motor Cars, LLC v. Amato, 388 F. Supp. 2d 250, 253 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); La Torres v. Walker, 216 F. Supp. 2d 157, 159 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). After conducting a review of the record, the Court finds that Judge Dolinger's thorough Report and Recommendation is not facially erroneous. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Court grants in part Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denies Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remands the case for further proceedings to develop a comprehensive administrative record. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Correale-Englehart v. Astrue

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Feb 8, 2010
No. 07 Civ. 3113 (RJS) (MHD) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2010)

holding that the ALJ should not have relied on an omission in the record in finding that plaintiff was not disabled, as this constituted mere speculation by the ALJ

Summary of this case from McIntosh v. Berryhill

finding that ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence because, inter alia, the ALJ "misstated plaintiff's testimony" and "ignored" some of her testimony

Summary of this case from Garcia v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

finding that the ALJ erred in discounting plaintiff's reports of taking pain medication and noting that "[t]he fact that plaintiff was taking such pain medication over a two-year period is, if anything, another indication that she was experiencing serious pain since the motor vehicle accident," and that "the ALJ failed to mention other medications . . . and how they affected her overall functioning, again failing to take into account all pertinent evidence"

Summary of this case from Bruce v. Colvin

finding that the ALJ erred in discounting plaintiff's reports of taking pain medication, noting that "[t]he fact that plaintiff was taking such pain medication over a two-year period is, if anything, another indication that she was experiencing serious pain since the motor vehicle accident," and that "the ALJ failed to mention other medications — including Ambien, Naprosyn, Celebrex, amitriptylin and Zanaflex — that plaintiff had taken over the two-year period and how they affected her overall functioning, again failing to take into account all pertinent evidence"

Summary of this case from Sanchez v. Colvin

requiring remand as ALJ failed to comply with treating physician rule by failing to address evidence in support of treating doctors' opinions

Summary of this case from Newell v. Saul

remanding to SSA because ALJ "failed to explain why . . . evidence did not adequately support the conclusion that plaintiff was not capable of work within the year after [an] accident" and noting that "if the claimant cannot work for at least a year, she would be found disabled for the period that she was unable to work"

Summary of this case from Whiting v. Berryhill

remanding where ALJ "cited selected portions of plaintiff's treating sources' opinions and did not meaningfully assess those reports as a whole [because] [i]n doing so, the ALJ failed to comply with a number of requirements embodied in the treating-physician rule"

Summary of this case from Briska v. Berryhill

noting that it was "improper" for the ALJ to have "cherry-picked some of the findings of the [consultative examiner] - notably those that minimized plaintiff's psychological limitations - and [to have] ignored others"

Summary of this case from Newell v. Colvin

remanding to the Commissioner because "the ALJ never followed the analytical path mandated by regulation, which requires that he discuss the length of treating relationship, the expertise of the treating doctors, the consistency of their findings and the extent to which the record offers support for some or all of those findings"

Summary of this case from Latney v. Colvin

remanding to the Commissioner because "the ALJ never followed the analytical path mandated by regulation, which requires that he discuss the length of treating relationship, the expertise of the treating doctors, the consistency of their findings and the extent to which the record offers support for some or all of those findings"

Summary of this case from Noutsis v. Colvin

remanding to the Commissioner because "the ALJ never followed the analytical path mandated by regulation, which requires that he discuss the length of treating relationship, the expertise of the treating doctors, the consistency of their findings and the extent to which the record offers support for some or all of those findings"

Summary of this case from Torres v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

remanding to the Commissioner because "the ALJ never followed the analytical path mandated by regulation, which requires that he discuss the length of treating relationship, the expertise of the treating doctors, the consistency of their findings and the extent to which the record offers support for some or all of those findings"

Summary of this case from Branca v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

noting that claimant had submitted "mental status examination" reporting "mildly impaired attention, concentration, and recent and remote memory"

Summary of this case from Canales v. Commissioner of Social Security
Case details for

Correale-Englehart v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:ANN CORREALE-ENGLEHART, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Feb 8, 2010

Citations

No. 07 Civ. 3113 (RJS) (MHD) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2010)

Citing Cases

Sutton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

But bipolar disorder creates non-exertional limitations. See Correale-Englehart v. Astrue, 687 F.Supp.2d 396,…

Murphy v. Lajaunie

"When no objections to a Report and Recommendation are made, the Court may adopt the Report if there is no…