Ramsey v. Commissioner of Social Security

<p>19-3306 Ramsey v. Commissioner of Social Security UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York on the 30th day of October, two thousand twenty. Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________________________ LAUREL M. RAMSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 19-3306-cv COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. _____________________________________________________ Appearing for Appellant: James P. Ratchford, Buffalo, NY. Lewis L. Schwartz, Buffalo, NY (on the brief). Appearing for Appellee: Peter W. Jewett, Special Assistant United States Attorney (Ellen E. Sovern, Regional Chief Counsel – Region II Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration, on the brief), for James P. Kennedy, Jr., United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Foschio, M.J.). ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be AFFIRMED. Appellant Laurel M. Ramsey appeals from a final judgment entered on August 29, 2016 by the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Foschio, M.J.), affirming an administrative law judge’s (“ALJ’s”) August 5, 2016, denial of Ramsey’s application for Social Security disability insurance benefits. The ALJ concluded that Ramsey was not disabled. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review. “When deciding an appeal from a denial of disability benefits, we focus on the administrative ruling rather than the district court’s opinion.” McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146, 149 (2d Cir. 2014) (citation and interal quotation marks omitted). In doing so, we consider whether “there is substantial evidence, considering the record as a whole, to support the Commissioner’s decision and if the correct legal standards have been applied.” Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). Substantial evidence “means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This is a “very deferential standard of review—even more so than the clearly erroneous standard.” Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 683 F.3d 443, 448 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Notably, if the evidence “is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the Commissioner’s ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4801930/ramsey-v-commissioner-of-social-security/">Original document</a>

Add comment

By anita

Recent Posts

Recent Comments