Browne v. Commissioner of Social Security
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-11175
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Browne v. Commissioner, Judge Daniels granted Browne’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the disability-benefits case for further proceedings.
Josephine Browne’s disability-benefits claim was sent back for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner’s request for judgment was denied.
What happened
In Browne v. Commissioner of Social Security, Josephine Browne asked the court to review an administrative law judge’s decision denying her disability insurance benefits. Both sides asked for judgment based on the written filings.
A magistrate judge found that the administrative law judge failed to properly consider Browne’s combined impairments, medical opinions, and the need to develop the record. No party objected to that recommendation.
Judge George B. Daniels adopted the recommendation in full, granted Browne’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and sent the matter back for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Browne v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:18-cv-11175
- George Daniels
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
Josephine Browne brought this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking review of an administrative law judge’s decision denying her disability insurance benefits. Browne moved for judgment on the pleadings, and the Commissioner of Social Security filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox recommended granting Browne’s motion, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanding the matter for further proceedings. He concluded that the administrative law judge had failed to:
- consider, assess, and explain the combined effect of Browne’s impairments; - consider all necessary factors before declining to give controlling weight to the opinions of treating medical sources; - adequately explain why greater weight was given to opinions from non-treating sources; and - sufficiently develop the record.
The parties did not file objections to the recommendation. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Ruling
The court found no error, clear or otherwise, in Magistrate Judge Fox’s analysis and adopted the Report and Recommendation in full. The court granted Browne’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The order did not itself award Browne disability benefits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.