Cantos v. Commissioner of Social Security
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-04269-GBD-SDA
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cantos v. Commissioner, Judge Daniels granted Cantos’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the disability-benefits case for further proceedings.
Oneida Cantos’s disability-benefits case was returned to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings; the Commissioner’s cross-motion was denied.
What happened
In Cantos v. Commissioner of Social Security, Oneida Cantos asked the court to review an administrative law judge’s decision denying her disability insurance benefits. Both sides asked for judgment based on the existing court record.
A magistrate judge recommended sending the case back to the Social Security Administration for more proceedings. He found that the administrative law judge had not considered all of Cantos’s impairments and had incorrectly applied the rule concerning treating physicians. Neither side objected to the recommendation.
Judge George B. Daniels found no error in the recommendation and adopted it. He granted Cantos’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Cantos v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-04269-GBD-SDA
- George Daniels
- Sept. 8, 2020
Background
Oneida Cantos sued the Commissioner of Social Security under the Social Security Act, asking the court to review an administrative law judge’s decision denying her disability insurance benefits. Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings, a decision based on the existing pleadings and administrative record rather than a trial.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended that Cantos’s motion be granted to the extent that the case be remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings, and that the Commissioner’s cross-motion be denied. He concluded that the administrative law judge erred by failing to consider all of Cantos’s impairments and by misapplying the treating physician rule. No party filed objections.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. The court found no error, clear or otherwise, adopted the recommendation, granted Cantos’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings and directed the clerk to close the motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.