At the third step, the ALJ found that Plaintiff does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R. 2- diagnosed by an acceptable medical source,2 and accordingly are not severe. The ALJ found that her alleged impulse control disorder and hallucinations/delusions are not medically determinable impairments 1 Citations to “T.” in parentheses refer to pages from the certified administrative transcript. At the second step, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff has the following severe impairments: PTSD, anxiety, and depression. THE ALJ’S DECISION At the first step of the sequential analysis, the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not engaged in any substantial gainful activity since April 18, 2013, the application date. For the reasons set forth herein, the Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and the matter is remanded for calculation and payment of benefits. The Court will discuss the record evidence further below, as necessary to the resolution of the parties’ contentions. Plaintiff and Defendant have cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (T.14-36).1 Plaintiff’s request for review by the Appeals Council was denied on November 10, 2016, making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. In a decision dated April 17, 2015, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was not disabled. It was rescheduled for April 1, 2015, and Plaintiff appeared with counsel and testified, as did impartial vocational expert Mark Pinti (“the VE”). Manico (“the ALJ”) held a videoconference hearing on December 9, 2014, which Plaintiff asked to postpone in order to obtain representation. Plaintiff’s application was denied, and she requested a hearing. PROCEDURAL STATUS Plaintiff filed an application for SSI on April 18, 2013, alleging disability since February 4, 2009, primarily due to posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), depression, and anxiety. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). INTRODUCTION Mariluz Cintron (“Plaintiff”), represented by counsel, brings this action pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act, challenging the final decision of Nancy A. 6:17-cv-06017(MAT) DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, -vsCOMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARILUZ CINTRON, No.
0 kommentar(er)
