Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Feb. 13, 2020

Goldman v. Berryhill

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:18-cv-06891
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Goldman v. Berryhill, Judge Karas denied Goldman’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s motion, and entered judgment for the Commissioner.

Who this affects

Scot T. Goldman’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income remained denied; the Commissioner prevailed in the district court.

What happened

In Goldman v. Berryhill, Scot T. Goldman challenged an administrative law judge’s decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. He argued that he was disabled under the Social Security Act.

Both Goldman and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security asked the court to rule in their favor based on the written record. Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy recommended denying Goldman’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion. Neither side objected to that recommendation.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. He adopted it, denied Goldman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted the Commissioner’s motion, entered judgment for the Commissioner, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Goldman v. Berryhill · No. 7:18-cv-06891
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Feb. 13, 2020

Background

Scot T. Goldman brought this Social Security case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging an administrative law judge’s decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The administrative law judge had found that Goldman was not disabled under the Social Security Act.

The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy. Goldman and the Acting Commissioner of Social Security each filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to decide the case based on the existing record.

Report and Recommendation

Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court deny Goldman’s motion and grant the Commissioner’s motion. Neither Goldman nor the Commissioner filed objections.

Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation only for clear error on the face of the record. The court reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Goldman’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendant, terminate the pending motions, and close the case.

The opinion’s supplied filing metadata gives the date as February 13, 2020, while the opinion’s scanned date line appears corrupted and may display a different day; the exact opinion date is therefore uncertain.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.