Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-06855
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Broderick remanded Rodriguez’s benefits case after denying the Commissioner’s motion and granting Rodriguez’s cross-motion.
Isabel Rodriguez’s application for supplemental security income will return to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings; the Commissioner’s request to affirm the denial was rejected.
What happened
Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security concerns Isabel Rodriguez’s request for court review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for supplemental security income.
The Commissioner asked the court to uphold that decision, while Rodriguez asked the court to rule in her favor. Magistrate Judge James L. Cott recommended denying the Commissioner’s request, granting Rodriguez’s request, and sending the case back to the Administrative Law Judge. Neither side objected.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, adopted it in full, denied the Commissioner’s motion, granted Rodriguez’s cross-motion, and remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-06855
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 7, 2020
Background
Isabel Rodriguez sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. The court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott.
The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), asking the court to affirm the administrative decision. Rodriguez filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Report and Recommendation
Judge Cott issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Commissioner’s motion be denied, Rodriguez’s cross-motion be granted, and the case be remanded to the Administrative Law Judge under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Neither party filed an objection.
Because there were no objections, the district 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 and accepted Judge Cott’s findings and recommendations.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Rodriguez’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case to the Administrative Law Judge. The Clerk was directed to terminate any open motions and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.