Tones OBO MM v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-04513
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tones v. Commissioner, Judge Furman upheld the finding that MM was not disabled, denied Tones’s motion, and granted the Commissioner’s motion.
Marisol Tones, proceeding on behalf of MM, was affected by the ruling that MM was not disabled; the Commissioner of Social Security prevailed on the cross-motions.
What happened
Tones OBO MM v. Commissioner of Social Security concerned whether substantial evidence supported the finding that MM, the plaintiff’s daughter, was not disabled. The parties asked the court to decide the case based on their written pleadings.
Magistrate Judge Fox recommended denying the plaintiff’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion. Neither party objected, so the parties waived objections and appellate review; the district court nevertheless reviewed the recommendation and found it well reasoned and supported by the record and law.
Judge Jesse M. Furman adopted the recommendation in full, denied the plaintiff’s motion, and granted the Commissioner’s motion. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Tones OBO MM v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-04513
- Jesse Furman
- July 10, 2020
Background
Marisol Tones brought this Social Security case on behalf of MM. The opinion states in a footnote that the complaint incorrectly listed the plaintiff’s name as “Marisol Tones” and that Magistrate Judge Fox identified the name as “Marisol Torres.” The opinion’s caption uses “Marisol Tones.”
The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Magistrate Judge Fox reviewed the motions and issued a Report and Recommendation on June 9, 2020.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and Objections
Magistrate Judge Fox recommended denying the plaintiff’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion. The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they had fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object.
No objections or requests for additional time were filed. Judge Furman therefore stated that the parties waived their right to object to the recommendation and to obtain appellate review. Even so, he reviewed the parties’ submissions and the recommendation.
Court’s Analysis
The court agreed with Magistrate Judge Fox that the administrative law judge’s conclusion that MM was not disabled was supported by substantial evidence in the record and was not based on legal error. The court also rejected the significance of the plaintiff’s argument that other evidence in the record could support a different conclusion, explaining that the administrative law judge’s factual determinations must be accepted when the record supports differing findings.
Disposition
Judge Furman adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The plaintiff’s motion was denied, and the Commissioner’s motion was granted. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the listed motions and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.