Faison v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:18-cv-10146
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Faison v. Commissioner, Judge Ramos granted the Commissioner’s motion, rejecting objections to the denial of Faison’s supplemental security income.
John P. Faison, whose challenge to the denial of supplemental security income was rejected, and the Commissioner of Social Security.
What happened
Faison v. Commissioner of Social Security concerns John P. Faison’s challenge to the denial of his application for supplemental security income. The Commissioner asked the court to enter judgment based on the existing record, and a magistrate judge recommended granting that request.
Faison objected and submitted a letter from a psychiatrist who began treating him in July 2019. The letter described additional diagnoses and stated that Faison could not work. The court found that the new evidence was not material to the earlier period under review, that the administrative law judge had considered the relevant symptoms, and that the psychiatrist’s opinion about Faison’s ability to work did not control the decision.
Judge Edgardo Ramos found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation, adopted it in full, and granted the Commissioner’s motion. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Faison v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:18-cv-10146
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 31, 2020
Background
John P. Faison brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which permits court review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security, challenging the denial of his application for supplemental security income. The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), asking the court to decide the case based on the existing pleadings and administrative record.
On January 4, 2020, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a report and recommendation advising that the Commissioner’s motion be granted. Faison filed an objection on January 27, 2020.
Faison’s New Evidence
Faison attached a January 9, 2020 letter from Dr. Matthew F. Garofalo, a psychiatrist who had treated him since July 2019. The letter stated that Faison had been treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, and paranoid personality disorder. The latter two diagnoses were not included in the administrative record. Dr. Garofalo also described Faison’s symptoms and opined that he was significantly impaired and unable to work.
A court may send a case back to the Commissioner to consider new evidence only if the evidence is material and the claimant had good cause for not presenting it earlier. The court stated that Faison did not explain why the evidence was new, material, or previously unavailable. In any event, the court held that the new diagnoses were not material. Dr. Garofalo began treating Faison after the period involved in the claim, the administrative law judge had considered the symptoms associated with the disorders, and a treating physician’s opinion that a claimant is disabled is not itself determinative because the ultimate decision belongs to the Commissioner.
Remaining Objections and Standard of Review
The court declined to consider arguments Faison raised for the first time in his objection because arguments were required to be presented first to the magistrate judge. The court also declined to revisit arguments that merely repeated Faison’s earlier contentions because he identified no fact that the report and recommendation overlooked or misunderstood and no legal conclusion he claimed was erroneous.
Because the objections were new, repetitive, or otherwise insufficiently specific, the court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues. The court found no clear error.
Disposition
The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and granted the Commissioner’s Rule 12(c) motion. It directed the clerk to enter judgment, terminate the motion, and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.