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

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Jun 17, 2009

U.S. District Court, Western District of N.Y.

Olowosoyo v. City of Rochester

08-CV-6007

Judge Telesca

Background: In this civil rights action, plaintiff claims that defendants Mueller and Mittiga knowingly made false statements against him to the state police which resulted in his arrest. In addition, plaintiff alleges that he was harassed and threatened as well as prevented from doing any more construction work in the city of Rochester. As a result, plaintiff asserts that he lost his business in Rochester. He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. [section]1983 claiming that his constitutional and civil rights were violated. Defendant SIF moves to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff is barred by the 11th Amendment from bringing an action for damages against the New York State Insurance Fund. Defendant Mueller also moves to dismiss on grounds that plaintiff has failed to state a viable cause of action against him. The city defendants join in the motion of the New York defendants and request dismissal.

Ruling: The court finds that the plaintiff, by merely alleging that "false statements were made" against him to the police without identifying what the statements were generally and by simply claiming that he was harassed and threatened without more information, fails to specify how his rights were violated under [section]1983. These statements are akin to conclusions of law, which cannot defeat a motion to dismiss. The claim against the Insurance Fund must be dismissed for being in violation of the 11th Amendment. The motions of the defendants being granted in full, the case is dismissed.

Femi Akinwale Olowosoyo, plaintiff pro se, Igor Shukoff, for the City of Rochester defendants, and Gary M. Levine, Assistant NYS Attorney General, for defendants Mueller and the Insurance Fund

Social Security

Johnson v. Astrue

07-CV-647

Judge Telesca

Background: The plaintiff brings this action to obtain judicial review of the agency's decision denying his claim for either disability or SSI benefits. Plaintiff was 33 years old at the time of the claim alleging a disability since Sept. 15, 2003, due to scoliosis, congenital abnormalities, and on-the-job back injuries with resulting disc herniations and disc bulge with associated neural foraminal stenosis. He is a high school graduate and had completed one year of college. A vocational expert testified at the hearing; the ALJ subsequently determined that although plaintiff could not perform his past work, he retained the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary, unskilled work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy and, therefore, was not disabled.

Ruling: The physical limitations placed upon the defendant did not prevent him from performing light work. Plaintiff disregarded both surgical and non-surgical treatment options. Further, the court agrees that the plaintiff's subjective complaints of disability were not credible. While the limitations were backed by medical evidence, the plaintiff's statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms were not entirely credible. The denial of benefits is affirmed.

Regina A. Walker for the plaintiff and Kevin D. Robinson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, for the defendant