Brown, Jr v. Berryhill
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-04935
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Brown, Jr v. Berryhill, Judge Caproni remanded the Social Security denial after finding the administrative law judge improperly discounted Brown’s treating psychiatrist.
The order affected Theodore Roosevelt Brown, Jr. by sending his Supplemental Security Income claim back for further proceedings, and required the Commissioner of Social Security to reconsider the matter consistently with the court’s ruling.
What happened
In Brown, Jr v. Berryhill, Theodore Roosevelt Brown, Jr. challenged the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. Both sides asked the court to rule in their favor based on the existing court record.
The court adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation after finding no clear error. The recommendation concluded that the administrative law judge improperly rejected Brown’s treating psychiatrist’s evaluation in favor of a report from a doctor who did not treat Brown and was not a mental-health specialist.
Judge Caproni granted Brown’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation. The court also said the Commissioner’s failure to file adequate objections prevented appellate review of the decision.
The detailed version
- Brown, Jr v. Berryhill · No. 1:19-cv-04935
- Valerie Caproni
- July 10, 2020
Background
Theodore Roosevelt Brown, Jr. sought judicial review under the Social Security Act of the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to decide the case based on the administrative record and the parties’ written arguments.
On June 23, 2020, Magistrate Judge Fox issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Brown’s motion be granted, the Commissioner’s motion be denied, and the case be sent back for further proceedings. Neither party objected to the recommendation.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that it reviews Social Security decisions to determine whether substantial evidence supports the decision and whether the correct legal standards were applied. “Substantial evidence” means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Because the parties did not object to the Report and Recommendation, the court reviewed it for clear error on the face of the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full.
The court agreed that the administrative law judge violated the treating physician rule. The administrative law judge discounted the evaluation by Brown’s treating psychiatrist in favor of a report from a non-treating, non-specialist doctor merely because the psychiatrist’s report used a “check off” format. The administrative law judge otherwise gave only a conclusory explanation for assigning the psychiatrist’s report no weight.
Disposition
The court granted Brown’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with Judge Fox’s Report and Recommendation. The court also stated that the Commissioner’s failure to file adequate objections to the recommendation precluded appellate review of the decision. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the open motions and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.