U.S. District Court, Northern District of N.Y. Case Summaries:

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Sep 18, 2008

U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York

Social Security

Disability

Stover v. Commissioner of Social Security

04-CV-1467

Judge Mordue

Background: The plaintiff bought action on behalf of her son seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny her application for supplemental security income on her son's behalf. Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Ruling: The plaintiff's motion is granted and the case is remanded. The Administrative Law Judge failed to apply the correct legal standard when considering whether the child's condition, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, met or medically equaled the requirements of a listed impairment. The ALJ's conclusion that the condition did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment is not supported by substantial evidence.

Louise Marie Tarantino of the Empire Justice Center for the plaintiff, and Stephen P. Conte of the Social Security Administration for the defendant

Wood-Monroe v. Astrue

05-CV-1570

Judge Mordue

Background: The plaintiff challenges the denial of her claim for SSI benefits. She was 40 years old at the time of the hearing and had past work experience as a kitchen helper, retail store cashier, day care worker, school lunch monitor and commercial cleaner. The plaintiff alleges disability due to Type II Bipolar Disorder, foot, ankle, back injuries and chronic migraines. The ALJ determined the plaintiff is able to perform the duties required in her past work.

Ruling: The court finds that the ALJ's decision that the plaintiff could return to her "past relevant work," which he deemed to include that of kitchen helper, retail store cashier, day care worker, school lunch monitor and commercial cleaner, was explained inadequately. The case is remanded for further explanation and proceedings on that point.

Lawrence D. Hasseler of Conboy, McKay, Bachman & Kendall LLP for the plaintiff, and Dennis J. Canning of the Social Security Administration for the defendant

Mental Competence

Right to Counsel

U.S. v. Van Hoesen

06-CR-394

Judge Sharpe

Background: John Van Hoesen is awaiting trial in connection with a multi-defendant gang indictment charging him with conspiring to distribute and distributing marijuana and crack cocaine. Without Van Hoesen's consent, his assigned counsel, Mitchell S. Kessler, moved to declare Van Hoesen mentally incompetent to stand trial or to assist in his own defense. The magistrate judge recommended the issuance of an order declaring Van Hoesen mentally competent to stand trial and assist in his defense.

Ruling: The court finds the conclusion that a personality disorder is not normally considered a "mental disease" rendering a defendant incompetent to be correct. The judge's determination was reasonably based on, in significant part, the judge's personal observations of the defendant. The court notes the strained relationship between defense counsel and the defendant. Given the deterioration of that relationship, as demonstrated by Kessler's motion and by Van Hoesen's response to Kessler's objections, the court remands the issue of Kessler's continued representation of Van Hoesen to Judge Homer for further consideration.

Mitchell S. Kessler for the defendant, and Carlos A. Moreno, U.S. Attorney's Office, for the United States