Lane v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-05523
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lane v. Saul, Judge Gardephe adopted a recommendation, granted remand for further proceedings, and denied the Commissioner’s motion.
Sheri Lane’s Social Security disability-benefits case was sent back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings; the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied.
What happened
In Lane v. Commissioner of Social Security, Sheri Lane challenged the decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The parties asked for judgment based on the pleadings.
A magistrate judge recommended sending the case back for further administrative proceedings because the Administrative Law Judge did not address evidence that Lane needed breaks during the day for gastrointestinal problems. The recommendation rejected Lane’s other arguments or found any errors harmless.
Judge Gardephe adopted the recommendation in full. He granted Lane’s motion to the extent it sought remand, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and sent the case back to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Lane v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:18-cv-05523
- Paul Gardephe
- Apr. 15, 2020
Background
Sheri Lane sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the existing court filings rather than a trial.
The court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang. Judge Wang issued a report and recommendation advising that Lane’s motion be granted to the extent she sought a remand for additional administrative proceedings and that the Commissioner’s motion be denied. Neither party objected after receiving notice that failing to object would waive further judicial review.
Issues and Analysis
Lane argued that the Administrative Law Judge, or ALJ, erred by: applying the wrong legal standard to several impairments; giving little weight to Dr. Ravi’s opinion that Lane needed periodic interruptions in her work schedule; improperly evaluating Lane’s credibility regarding pain; failing to account for gastrointestinal problems in determining her residual functional capacity, or RFC; and failing to account for right-hand pain in determining her RFC.
Judge Wang rejected all but the gastrointestinal-related argument, finding either that the ALJ had not erred or that an error was harmless. For the gastrointestinal issue, Judge Wang concluded that the ALJ’s finding that Lane could return to her previous work was not supported by substantial evidence. In particular, the ALJ had not addressed evidence concerning Lane’s need for daytime breaks because of gastrointestinal problems.
Ruling
Judge Gardephe reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error because no party had objected. He found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court granted Lane’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that the case was remanded for further administrative proceedings, denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, and remanded the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.