Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Roger Arcaro v. Michael J. Astrue

May 18, 2011

ROGER ARCARO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. SUMMARY

On August 31, 2010, plaintiff Roger Arcaro ("plaintiff") filed a Complaint seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of plaintiff's application for benefits. The parties have consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross motions for summary judgment, respectively ("Plaintiff's Motion") and ("Defendant's Motion"). The Court has taken both motions under submission without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15; September 9, 2010 Case Management Order, ¶ 5.

Based on the record as a whole and the applicable law, the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. The findings of the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") are supported by substantial evidence and are free from material error.*fn1

II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

On or about May 10, 2005, plaintiff filed applications for Supplemental Security Income benefits and Disability Insurance Benefits. (Administrative Record ("AR") 18, 103, 107). Plaintiff asserted that he became disabled on January 21, 1991 due to depression and gout. (AR 18, 122). The ALJ examined the medical record and heard testimony from plaintiff (who was represented by counsel), two medical experts and a vocational expert on October 22, 2007. (AR 384-424).

On January 17, 2007, the ALJ determined that plaintiff was not disabled through the date of the decision. (AR 19, 30). Specifically, the ALJ found:

(1) plaintiff has no severe medically determinable impairments (AR 21);

(2) plaintiff does not have any impairments which, considered singly or in combination, meet or medically equal one of the listed impairments (AR 26);

(3) plaintiff had no significant physical limitations, with some minimal non-exertional limitations (AR 26-27); (4) plaintiff could not perform his past *fn2 relevant work (AR 28); (5) there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff could perform (AR 29); and (6) plaintiff's allegations regarding his limitations were not totally credible. (AR 27).

The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's application for review. (AR 5).

III. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Sequential Evaluation ...


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.