Cote v. O'Malley
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-00233
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cote v. O’Malley, Judge Clarke adopted a recommendation granting Cote’s motion and remanded her Social Security case for further proceedings.
Ella M. Cote’s application for Supplemental Security Income benefits was remanded for further proceedings before the Social Security Administration.
What happened
Ella M. Cote asked the court to review the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. Magistrate Judge Willis recommended granting Cote’s motion and sending the case back for further proceedings.
Neither side objected to the recommendation or requested more time to do so. The court nevertheless reviewed the briefing and recommendation and found that the administrative law judge had incorrectly evaluated several pieces of medical evidence. Because the medical opinions had varied results, the court concluded that reevaluation was needed.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke adopted the recommendation in full and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the recommendation on the docket.
The detailed version
- Cote v. O'Malley · No. 1:24-cv-00233
- Clarke
- Aug. 27, 2025
Background
Ella M. Cote sought judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s final decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Willis, who issued a Report and Recommendation on August 11, 2025.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Willis recommended that Cote’s motion be granted and that the case be remanded for further proceedings. The recommendation stated that the administrative law judge, identified as Judge Cascio, had erred in evaluating multiple pieces of medical evidence. It also explained that the medical opinions in the record had varied results, supporting a remand for reevaluation.
Objections and Review
The parties had fourteen days to object to the Report and Recommendation, but neither party filed an objection or requested an extension. The court therefore stated that the parties had waived their right to object and to obtain appellate review. Even so, the court reviewed the parties’ briefing and the recommendation and found it well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court remanded the case for further proceedings in accordance with that recommendation and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the recommendation from the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.