Michael A.S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-06184
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 16
In Michael A.S. v. Commissioner, Judge Karas recommended affirming the benefits denial because the administrative law judge’s error was harmless.
Michael A.S., Sr.’s applications for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits were affected. The recommendation favors the Commissioner by affirming the denial of benefits and recommending dismissal of the case.
What happened
Michael A.S., Sr. sought disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits after the Social Security Administration denied his applications. An administrative law judge found that he had several severe physical and mental impairments but could perform a limited range of light work and other jobs available in significant numbers.
Michael A.S., Sr. argued that the administrative law judge failed to consider a cervical-spine condition shown on a 2015 magnetic-resonance scan and therefore left needed restrictions out of the work-capacity finding. The court agreed that the administrative law judge should have discussed the condition, but concluded the mistake did not affect the result because the scan was remote in time and later examinations and medical opinions supported the finding that he could perform limited light work.
In a report and recommendation, Judge Kenneth Karas recommended affirming the Commissioner’s decision and dismissing the case. The report states that the parties had 14 days after service to object, so the text provided does not show whether the district judge later adopted the recommendation.
The detailed version
- Michael A.S. v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:23-cv-06184
- Kenneth Karas
- June 17, 2024
Background
Michael A.S., Sr. applied for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits in February
- He initially alleged disability beginning October 1, 2019, but later amended the alleged onset date to April 1,
- The Social Security Administration denied the applications initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge Lori Romeo denied the applications on November 3,
- The Appeals Council denied review on May 19, 2023, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision for judicial review.
The administrative law judge found severe impairments involving the thoracic and lumbar spine, knees, obesity, adjustment disorder, depression, and anxiety. She determined that Michael A.S., Sr. retained the residual functional capacity—the most he could still do despite his impairments—to perform a reduced range of light work, with physical, environmental, and workplace-contact restrictions. She found that he could not return to his past work as a chef or line cook, but that other jobs existed in significant numbers in the national economy that he could perform.
Issue
Michael A.S., Sr. raised one primary argument: that the administrative law judge failed to address a possible cervical-spine impairment and failed to include any resulting limitations in the residual functional capacity finding. He relied on a June 2015 magnetic-resonance scan showing disc herniations at C3-C4 and C6-C7, with cord impingement and flattening, and a straightened cervical spine curve.
Analysis
The report and recommendation found that the administrative law judge erred by failing to discuss and analyze the scan and potential cervical-spine impairment. It nevertheless concluded that the error was harmless, meaning that applying the correct legal principles to the record could lead only to the same result, so a remand was unnecessary.
The report emphasized that the scan was performed nearly five years before the amended alleged onset date and while Michael A.S., Sr. was still working full time. Evidence from the relevant period included a July 2020 examination showing full cervical-spine movement, full strength, normal gait and stance, no sensory deficit, and no muscle atrophy. A March 2021 examination reported substantially similar findings. Two state-agency medical consultants also concluded that he could perform light work with certain postural restrictions and no manipulative limitations.
The report further relied on treatment records showing lower-back complaints but no neurological or sensory deficits, relief from medication and a back brace, and daily activities including self-care, laundry, weekly shopping, public transportation, cooking, and cleaning. It concluded that the medical opinions, treatment records, and activities supported the administrative law judge’s reduced-light-work finding and did not establish additional limitations from the cervical spine.
Recommendation and Procedural Posture
The report recommends that the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed and that the case be dismissed. It is a report and recommendation rather than a final district-court order in the text provided. The parties were given 14 days after service to file objections, and the report states that failing to object timely could limit objections on appeal.
Read the full 16-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.