Bickram v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-01160
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bickram v. Commissioner, Judge Karas adopted a recommendation denying dismissal or summary judgment and ordered discussions about possible remand.
Reginald Bickram and the Commissioner of Social Security. The order required them to discuss possible remand and report their preferred next steps to the court.
What happened
Reginald Bickram asked the court to review the Social Security Commissioner’s decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits and/or supplemental security income benefits. The Commissioner argued that Bickram’s complaint was filed too late and moved to dismiss it or, alternatively, for summary judgment.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the Commissioner’s motion. Neither party objected to that recommendation. The opinion does not describe any decision on whether Bickram was actually entitled to benefits.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. He ordered the parties to discuss whether the case should be sent back to the Commissioner and to notify the court within 14 days how they wished to proceed.
The detailed version
- Bickram v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:18-cv-01160
- Kenneth Karas
- June 29, 2021
Background
Reginald Bickram brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which allows judicial review of a final Social Security decision. He sought review of the Commissioner’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and/or supplemental security income benefits.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or alternatively for summary judgment under Rule 56. The Commissioner argued that the complaint was barred by the time limit in § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Report and Recommendation
The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause. On June 9, 2021, Judge Krause issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the Commissioner’s motion be denied. The parties filed no objections.
When no objections are filed, the district court reviews a dispositive recommendation for clear error. Judge Karas reviewed the recommendation and stated that he found no substantive error, clear or otherwise.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Thus, the Commissioner’s motion was denied as recommended; the opinion does not separately state a disposition for each alternative ground beyond adopting the recommendation.
The court also ordered the parties to meet and confer about whether the case should be remanded to the Commissioner. The parties were required to file a letter within 14 days explaining how they wished to proceed. The opinion does not decide whether Bickram is entitled to disability benefits or supplemental security income benefits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.