Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-06559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Suarez v. Commissioner, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein recommended denying the Commissioner’s motion and sending the child’s benefits case back for further proceedings.
C.L.S.’s claim for supplemental security income benefits must receive further administrative consideration. The recommendation did not award benefits or decide that C.L.S. was disabled; it required a fuller explanation of whether he met Listing 112.11. The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was recommended to be denied.
What happened
Jennifer Suarez, acting for her minor son C.L.S., challenged the denial of his supplemental security income benefits in Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security. The Commissioner asked the court to rule in its favor based on the existing filings, but Suarez did not oppose the motion.
The administrative law judge found that C.L.S. had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and speech and language delays but was not disabled. The judge did not identify or discuss any specific disability listing, even though the record contained evidence that could relate to Listing 112.11 for neurodevelopmental disorders and limitations in learning and maintaining attention.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended denying the Commissioner’s motion and remanding the case for further proceedings. The recommendation would require a fuller explanation of whether C.L.S. met Listing 112.11; it did not decide that C.L.S. was entitled to benefits. The parties had 14 days to object, with any objections directed to Judge Katherine Failla.
The detailed version
- Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-06559
- Katherine Failla
- Oct. 21, 2021
Background
Jennifer Suarez sought supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act on behalf of her minor son, C.L.S. The Social Security Administration denied the application. After a hearing, an administrative law judge found that C.L.S. had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and speech and language delays but was not disabled. The Appeals Council declined review, making the administrative law judge’s decision final.
Suarez filed this federal case without a lawyer. The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), asking the court to uphold the agency’s decision and dismiss the case. Suarez did not file an opposition, even after receiving an extension.
The Administrative Law Judge’s Findings
The administrative law judge found that C.L.S. had not engaged in substantial work activity, had two severe impairments, and did not have an impairment that met or equaled one of the disability listings. The judge found a marked limitation in attending and completing tasks; less-than-marked limitations in acquiring and using information and in interacting and relating with others; and no limitations in moving about and manipulating objects, caring for himself, or health and physical well-being.
Why the Court Recommended Further Proceedings
The court reviews a Social Security decision to determine whether it was supported by substantial evidence and used the correct legal standard. Here, the administrative law judge’s entire explanation for the finding at the listings stage was that C.L.S. did not have an impairment meeting or equaling a listed impairment. The judge did not identify which listings were considered or explain the evidence supporting the conclusion.
The report focused on Listing 112.11, which concerns neurodevelopmental disorders and, among other requirements, calls for medical documentation of certain attention, learning, or behavioral difficulties plus an extreme limitation in one area of mental functioning or marked limitations in two areas. The record included evidence of frequent distraction, difficulty sustaining attention and organizing tasks, repeated grades, academic difficulties, trouble following instructions, and a need for assistance staying on task. The administrative law judge had also found a marked limitation in attending and completing tasks.
The court did not decide whether C.L.S. actually satisfied Listing 112.11. It concluded that the evidence was substantial enough that the administrative law judge needed to explain whether the listing was met. Without that analysis, meaningful judicial review was not possible.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied and that the case be remanded for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation. The report stated that the parties could file objections within 14 days and that requests for extensions should be directed to Judge Katherine Failla.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.