Velez v. Berryhill
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-08603
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Velez v. Saul, Judge Gardephe remanded for further proceedings after finding error in evaluating treating physicians’ opinions.
Nestor Velez’s claim for disability insurance benefits was sent back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings; the Commissioner’s request for judgment on the pleadings was denied.
What happened
In Velez v. Saul, Nestor Velez asked the court to review the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. He argued that the administrative law judge mishandled the medical evidence, his obesity, and his ability to work.
A magistrate judge recommended sending the case back for two reasons: the administrative law judge was not properly appointed when he held Velez’s hearing, and he did not properly evaluate the opinions of Velez’s treating physicians. The Commissioner objected only to the appointment issue, arguing that Velez had raised it too late.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe declined to remand the case based on the appointment issue but adopted the recommendation concerning the treating physicians’ opinions. The court granted Velez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to that extent, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Velez v. Berryhill · No. 1:18-cv-08603
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 26, 2020
Background
Nestor Velez sought review under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), after the Social Security Administration denied his application for disability insurance benefits. He filed his application on April 15, 2015, alleging that his disability began on November 30, 2014. The agency denied the application, an administrative law judge found that Velez was not disabled, and the Appeals Council upheld that decision.
Velez moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to rule based on the existing record. He argued that the administrative law judge incorrectly evaluated whether his condition met a listed impairment, failed to give proper weight to his treating physicians’ opinions, inadequately evaluated his obesity, and incorrectly found that he could perform sedentary work. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and Objection
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox recommended remanding the case and denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion. His recommendation relied on two grounds. First, the administrative law judge had conducted Velez’s hearing on July 18, 2017, before the administrative law judge was properly appointed on July 16, 2018. Second, the administrative law judge had not given Velez’s treating sources’ opinions the controlling weight required by the applicable Social Security Administration regulation.
The Commissioner objected to the recommendation concerning the appointment issue. The Commissioner argued that Velez had forfeited that constitutional challenge because he did not raise it during the administrative proceedings or in this litigation. Velez did not object to the recommendation, did not respond to the Commissioner’s objection, and did not brief the appointment issue when Judge Fox directed the parties to address it.
Analysis
The court declined to adopt Judge Fox’s recommendation to remand the case to a different administrative law judge based on the appointment issue. Relying on decisions discussed in the opinion, the court concluded that Velez had not raised the Appointments Clause challenge during either the administrative proceedings or the current litigation. The court therefore did not remand on that ground.
The Commissioner did not object to Judge Fox’s conclusion that the administrative law judge committed legal error by failing to apply the treating-physician rule. Because no objection was filed on that issue, the court explained that further judicial review had been waived. Even so, the court reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error in the record.
The court adopted the recommendation on the treating-physician issue. It directed that the administrative law judge explain why the opinions of Dr. Long deserved more weight than the opinions of Velez’s treating physicians, Dr. Radna and Dr. Katzman, and explain why that determination complied with the applicable Social Security Administration regulations.
Disposition
The court adopted the findings and conclusions of the Report and Recommendation as described in the order. Velez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted to the extent that the case was remanded for further proceedings on the treating-physician issue. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. The order did not make a final determination that Velez was disabled or entitled to benefits.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.