U.S. District Court, Western District of New York Case Summaries:

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Sep 22, 2008

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

Diversity Jurisdiction

Defunct Corporation

Bonta v. Accor North America

07-CV-735

Judge Skretny

Background: The plaintiff commenced the action stating she was injured when she fell in August 2006 while staying at a Red Roof Inn in Hamburg, N.Y.. The plaintiff, a resident of Ohio, brought the action in New York State Supreme Court, naming Accor and Red Roof Inns as defendants. The defendants removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff moves to have the case remanded to the state court on the grounds that complete diversity does not exist due to the existence of Red Roof Inn Buffalo I Co. as a defendant. The defendants contend Red Roof Inn Buffalo I Co. ceased to exist after a merger in 1984.

Ruling: The court finds the defendants established by a preponderance of the evidence that complete diversity exists in the case. There is unrefuted evidence that Red Roof Inn Buffalo I Co. was dissolved in 1984, long before any of the events underlying the plaintiff's cause of action occurred. The court notes that, although there are cases that hold that a defunct corporation can be sued in New York, they appear to involve claims that arose during the lifetime of such a corporation. The motion to remand is denied.

Michele A. Smith of Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP for the plaintiff, and Bradley J. Levien of Mintzer, Sarowitz, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers LLP for the defendants.

Social Security

Walterich v. Astrue

06-CV-0747

Judge Arcara

Background: The plaintiff's claim for disability and SSI benefits was denied and the action was commenced to obtain judicial review of the denial. The 53-year-old plaintiff suffers from a condition consisting of an anxiety disorder, a panic disorder, a depressive disorder and a personality disorder. The defendant found that, while the impairments were severe, they do not fall under the definition of impairment under the Act. The plaintiff worked as a dietary aide in nursing homes from 1990 until she was terminated in December 2003 for poor attendance as a result of her disability. She then tried working as a kitchen helper in 2004 but quit after a week due to the impairment of the disability. The medical record contains an extensive history of panic attacks and depression. One treating doctor said the plaintiff's condition had become such that it would be very difficult for her to be in public places, such as a workplace, without a family member. Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings.

Ruling: The court noted that eligibility for disability benefits is not contingent on a claimant being rendered completely incapacitated. The court also finds the ALJ failed to develop the record to resolve the conflicting evidence that was found. Finding that the plaintiff's impairments have rendered her unable to work, contrary to the finding of the ALJ who ignored the vocational expert's opinion on whether jobs existed that the plaintiff could perform, the court reverses and remands the case for a calculation of benefits.

Joseph D. Clark of the Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller for the plaintiff, and Kevin D. Robinson, U.S. Attorney's Office, for the defendant.

Jones v. Astrue

07-CV-276

Judge Skretny

Background: The plaintiff contests the denial of his application for disability benefits. He alleges he was disabled between April 14, 2004 and July 17, 2005, due to a right knee injury, left knee deterioration, hypertension, sleep apnea and GERD. The plaintiff contends the impairments render him unable to work. His past work was as a patrol officer and the ALJ found he is able to perform certain jobs despite the impairments.

Ruling: Because the ALJ failed to properly apply the treating physician rule, and did not adequately explain why the plaintiff's treating physician's opinion was not entitled to controlling or extra weight, the case is remanded. A claimant with a good work record, as the plaintiff has, is entitled to substantial credibility when claiming an inability to work because of a disability.

Kenneth R. Hiller of the Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller for the plaintiff, and Jane B. Wolfe, U.S. Attorney's Office, for the defendant.