Terry T. v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
- Jones
- 1:24-cv-09968
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 28
In Terry T. v. Commissioner, Magistrate Judge Jones granted remand because the disability decision lacked necessary mental-health evidence.
Terry T. and the Social Security Administration. The case returns to the agency for further proceedings, including obtaining a functional assessment from one or more treating mental-health providers and reassessing the mental RFC and, if necessary, the step-five job analysis.
What happened
In Terry T. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Terry T. asked the court to review the denial of disability benefits. The Administrative Law Judge found that Terry T. could perform a limited range of light work and that other jobs were available, but denied benefits.
The court upheld the Administrative Law Judge’s assessment of Terry T.’s physical abilities and found no reversible error in the step-five job analysis. But it found that the mental-health evidence was incomplete: no treating mental-health provider had assessed Terry T.’s work-related functioning, and the Administrative Law Judge had improperly discounted the only examining physician’s opinion describing marked mental limitations.
Magistrate Judge Jones granted Terry T.’s motion and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. The Social Security Administration must further develop the mental-health record and reassess Terry T.’s ability to meet the mental demands of basic work; the court directed the Clerk to enter final judgment for Terry T. and close the case.
The detailed version
- Terry T. v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · No. 1:24-cv-09968
- Jones
- Aug. 3, 2025
Background
Terry T. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income in February 2022, alleging disability beginning May 31,
- He later amended the alleged onset date to February 3,
- The applications were denied initially and on reconsideration. After a hearing, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Michael Stacchini denied benefits on February 22,
- The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.
The ALJ found that Terry T. had several severe physical and mental impairments, including schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, obesity, degenerative disc disease, asthma, sleep apnea, carpal tunnel syndrome, bicep tendonitis, and shoulder impingement. The ALJ determined that Terry T. could perform a reduced range of light work, with limits on climbing, postural activities, environmental exposure, the complexity of tasks, and interactions with other people. The ALJ found that Terry T. could not return to his past work as a store manager but could perform other jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy.
Terry T. moved to remand the case for further administrative proceedings. He challenged the ALJ’s assessment of his physical and mental residual functional capacity (RFC), meaning his maximum ability to perform sustained work, and challenged the ALJ’s step-five finding about available jobs.
Physical RFC
The court upheld the ALJ’s assessment of Terry T.’s physical limitations. It found support in the consultative examination by Dr. Kautilya Puri, the opinion of state-agency review physician Dr. J. Koenig, treatment notes showing generally unremarkable findings such as normal gait and full or near-full strength, a normal right-shoulder X-ray, and Terry T.’s reported daily activities. The court noted that the ALJ had imposed additional restrictions beyond those identified by the medical opinions and had reasonably considered the record as a whole.
Mental RFC and Duty to Develop the Record
The court reached a different conclusion about the mental RFC. Terry T. had severe mental impairments that limited his ability to meet the mental demands of basic work. The record showed that he saw a therapist weekly and a nurse practitioner monthly, but it contained no functional assessment from a treating mental-health provider.
The only opinion from an examining physician was Dr. Konstantinos Tsoubris’s June 2022 psychiatric evaluation. Dr. Tsoubris identified marked limitations in several areas, including making work-related decisions, interacting with supervisors, coworkers, and the public, sustaining a routine, maintaining regular attendance, regulating emotions, controlling behavior, and maintaining well-being. The ALJ discounted those limitations and relied in part on treatment records and opinions from non-examining state-agency physicians.
The court held that the ALJ had an affirmative duty to develop the record, including when the claimant is represented by counsel. It found that the absence of a treating provider’s functional assessment was significant, particularly because Dr. Tsoubris’s opinion described disabling mental limitations and because mental-health functioning may differ between supportive treatment settings and ordinary competitive employment. The court also found that the ALJ had selectively read the record and that the state-agency opinions, without more, were insufficient to support the denial.
The court rejected the argument that counsel’s statement that the record was complete relieved the ALJ of this duty. Although the court criticized counsel for failing to obtain the evidence and then seeking remand based on the incomplete record, it held that remand was still required when further development was necessary.
Step-Five Analysis
The court found no reversible error in the ALJ’s step-five analysis as it stood. The ALJ had relied on vocational-expert testimony identifying photocopy machine operator, marker, and mail clerk positions. The court declined to find those occupations obsolete and held that a Social Security Administration emergency message concerning certain occupations did not apply to the ALJ’s February 2024 decision and did not identify these occupations.
The court stated, however, that the step-five analysis would need to be performed again on remand if further development of the mental-health record changed Terry T.’s RFC.
Disposition
The court GRANTED Terry T.’s Motion for Remand to the Social Security Administration for Further Administrative Proceedings. It REMANDED the case for further proceedings consistent with the decision, directed the Clerk to enter final judgment in favor of Terry T., and directed the Clerk to close the file.
Read the full 28-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.