Soto v. Commissioner Of Social Security Of The United States
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-03416
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Soto v. Commissioner, Judge Tarnofsky ordered the parties to address whether the ALJ adequately considered migraine-related limitations in assessing residual functional capacity.
The parties to Michael Soto’s Social Security case, who must prepare to address the migraine-related residual-functional-capacity issue at the scheduled oral argument.
What happened
Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security concerns an upcoming oral argument scheduled for September 8, 2025. The order does not describe a final decision on Michael Soto’s claim.
The court directed the parties to be ready to discuss whether the administrative law judge adequately considered limitations from migraine headaches, including sensitivity to light, nausea, and vomiting, when assessing Soto’s residual functional capacity.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky issued the order on May 27, 2025. The order also directed the parties to address whether two cited Social Security decisions were relevant to this case.
The detailed version
- Soto v. Commissioner Of Social Security Of The United States · No. 1:24-cv-03416
- Tarnofsky
- May 27, 2025
Purpose of the Order
This is a pre-argument order concerning an oral argument scheduled for September 8, 2025. The court directed the parties to prepare to address a specific issue rather than deciding that issue in this order.
Issue Identified by the Court
The parties must be prepared to discuss whether the administrative law judge’s assessment of Michael Soto’s residual functional capacity—meaning the work-related limitations the judge found he could perform—failed to adequately account for limitations caused by migraine headache disorder. The order specifically identifies sensitivity to light, nausea, and vomiting.
The parties must also address whether two decisions cited by the court are relevant to this case. The opinion does not state how those decisions should apply or resolve the underlying Social Security dispute.
Disposition
The court issued the preparation directive and scheduled the matter for oral argument. It did not affirm, reverse, or remand the Social Security decision in this order. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.