Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-09278-PMH-JCM
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gomez v. Commissioner, Judge Halpern adopted the recommendation, granted Gomez’s motion in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion in part, and remanded.
Lisa C. Gomez and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case was sent back to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
What happened
Lisa C. Gomez asked the court to review the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her application for benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
A magistrate judge recommended granting Gomez’s request for judgment based on the administrative record in part, denying the Commissioner’s request in part, and sending the case back for further proceedings. Neither party objected.
Judge Philip M. Halpern found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, granted Gomez’s motion in part, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion in part, and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The detailed version
- Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-09278-PMH-JCM
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 22, 2021
Background
Lisa C. Gomez brought this action seeking judicial review of a final administrative decision by the Commissioner of Social Security that denied her application for benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The administrative decision was issued on October 7, 2019.
Gomez moved for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the existing administrative record and the parties’ written submissions. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for the same relief.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation on December 23, 2020. It recommended that Gomez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted in part, that the Commissioner’s cross-motion be denied in part, and that the case be remanded to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation.
Neither party objected. When no objection is filed, the district court may adopt the recommendation if the record does not show clear error.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error in Magistrate Judge McCarthy’s analysis. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
The court therefore granted Gomez’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in part, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings in part, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with the conclusions in the Report and Recommendation. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motions filed at docket entries 18 and 22 and enter judgment accordingly.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.