Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled July 17, 2025

Ivette R. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:24-cv-05474
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Social SecurityEvidence
In one sentence

Nitza Ivette R. v. Commissioner, Judge Roman remanded the disability-benefits case because the administrative judge did not fully consider her chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Who this affects

Nitza Ivette R.’s claim for Social Security disability insurance benefits is sent back to the agency for further proceedings; the opinion does not state that benefits were awarded.

What happened

In Nitza Ivette R. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Nitza Ivette R. challenged the decision denying her disability insurance benefits. The administrative law judge found that she had several serious physical and mental impairments but concluded that she could perform light work.

A magistrate judge recommended sending the case back to the Social Security agency for further proceedings. Neither side objected to that recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed it for obvious error in the record.

Judge Nelson S. Roman found no such error and adopted the recommendation in full. He remanded the matter to the agency because the administrative law judge had not fully analyzed or considered the medical evidence concerning Nitza Ivette R.’s chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ivette R. v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:24-cv-05474
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
July 17, 2025

Background

Nitza Ivette R. sought disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. She alleged that conditions including degenerative disc disease, depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), peripheral vascular disease, venous-treatment history, and lower-extremity swelling limited her ability to work.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) found that she had severe impairments, but concluded that none, alone or together, met the Social Security Act’s listed impairments. The ALJ determined that she retained the capacity to perform light work and denied her application. The Social Security Appeals Council later denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the agency’s final decision for purposes of the federal case.

Report and Recommendation

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones, who issued a report and recommendation that the matter be remanded to the Social Security agency for further proceedings. Neither party filed a timely objection.

Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the ALJ used the required five-step disability analysis. The ALJ considered several of Nitza Ivette R.’s severe impairments and found that she could perform light work. However, the ALJ did not conduct a comprehensive analysis of her COPD.

The court emphasized that the record showed COPD was chronic and well documented. The ALJ therefore had a duty to fully develop the record and give appropriate consideration to the relevant medical evidence. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety.

Disposition

The court remanded the matter to the Social Security agency for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation and the court’s opinion. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.