Clarke v. Saul
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-02377
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Clarke v. Saul, Judge Schofield adopted a recommendation, granted Clarke’s motion, vacated the benefits denial, and remanded for further proceedings.
Ivette Clarke and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case was remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.
What happened
In Clarke v. Saul, Ivette Clarke asked the court to review the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income.
A magistrate judge recommended granting Clarke’s motion, denying the Commissioner’s motion, vacating the benefits decision, and sending the matter back to the agency for further proceedings. No timely objections were filed.
Judge Schofield found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, granted Clarke’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, vacated the decision denying benefits, and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Clarke v. Saul · No. 1:20-cv-02377
- Lorna Schofield
- June 10, 2021
Background
Ivette Clarke filed a complaint under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income.
Report and Recommendation
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for a report and recommendation on any motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judge Cave recommended granting Clarke’s motion, denying the Commissioner’s motion, vacating the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits, and remanding the matter to the agency for further proceedings.
The parties had fourteen days after service of the report to file objections. No timely objections were filed. In that circumstance, the District Court reviewed the record for clear error—an obvious mistake on the face of the record.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield found no clear error in Judge Cave’s recommendation and adopted the report. The court granted Clarke’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, vacated the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits, and remanded the matter to the agency for further proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The opinion does not state the specific reasons for the agency’s benefits denial or the reasons supporting the recommended remand.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.