Ortiz v. Berryhill

Background

In an earlier opinion, the Court remanded Jose Ortiz’s Social Security benefits case to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. The Court had also imposed a 120-day deadline for those proceedings and directed that benefits be paid if the deadline was not met. Judgment was entered on September 26, 2019.

The Commissioner moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. The Commissioner argued that the Court had erred by imposing the deadline and by ordering benefits based solely on the passage of time. Ortiz filed an opposition.

Court’s analysis

The Court considered the Second Circuit’s decisions in Bush v. Shalala and Butts v. Barnhart. Bush held that delay alone is not enough to justify remanding a Social Security case for payment of benefits when the claimant has not been found actually disabled. Butts recognized that a court may impose enforceable time limits in some cases reviewed at the fifth step of the Social Security disability evaluation, where the claimant is presumptively disabled and the Commissioner must show that jobs exist that the claimant can perform.

The Court concluded that Butts did not apply here. Although Ortiz’s application had been denied at step five, the Court had remanded because the record was not fully developed concerning his residual functional capacity. The record established that Ortiz had a severe impairment at step two, but it did not establish disability through a listed impairment at step three or through past relevant work at step four. Because the administrative decision did not compel a finding of disability, Ortiz was not yet presumptively entitled to benefits. Reaching step five alone was therefore insufficient to justify a deadline backed by an order to calculate benefits.

The Court stated that it had erred in imposing the time limit and the potential benefits payment based on the passage of time. Because it resolved the motion on the basis of Butts and related decisions, it did not reach the Commissioner’s arguments concerning the Appropriations Clause or sovereign immunity.

Disposition

Judge James L. Cott granted the Commissioner’s Rule 59(e) motion. The Court vacated its prior opinion and order to the extent that it imposed a time limit on the remand proceedings and directed immediate calculation of benefits if the deadline was exceeded. The Clerk was directed to close Docket No. 30 and mark it as granted.