Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-06559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In Suarez v. Commissioner, Judge Failla denied the Commissioner’s motion and remanded the benefits case because the disability decision lacked required explanation.
C.L.S., through Jennifer Suarez, and the Commissioner of Social Security; the Commissioner must conduct further proceedings consistent with the remand.
What happened
In Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Jennifer Suarez sought review of a decision finding that her minor son, C.L.S., was not disabled and therefore was not eligible for benefits. The Administrative Law Judge found that C.L.S. had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and speech and language delays, including a serious limitation in completing tasks.
The court found that the Administrative Law Judge did not explain why C.L.S. did not meet a listed disability, particularly Listing 112.11 for neurodevelopmental disorders. The record contained evidence of attention problems, academic difficulties, and limitations in concentrating, so the judge needed to analyze that listing rather than reject all listed impairments in one unexplained sentence.
Judge Failla adopted the magistrate judge’s report in full, denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The ruling did not itself decide that C.L.S. was entitled to benefits.
The detailed version
- Suarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-06559
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 16, 2021
Background
Jennifer Suarez applied for disability benefits on behalf of her minor son, C.L.S. The application was denied, and an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) later found that C.L.S. was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The ALJ found severe impairments consisting of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and speech and language delays. The ALJ also found a marked limitation in attending and completing tasks; less-than-marked limitations in acquiring and using information and interacting with others; and no limitation in the other three functional areas.
The Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council declined review, making the ALJ’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision. Suarez then filed this federal case seeking review. The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, meaning a ruling based on the pleadings and the existing record. Suarez did not oppose the motion. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, who recommended denying the motion and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Issue and analysis
Under the federal review standard, the court could uphold the Commissioner’s decision only if it was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standard. For a child’s disability claim, the ALJ must determine whether the child’s impairments meet, medically equal, or functionally equal an impairment listed in the regulations. Functional equivalence generally requires a marked limitation in two functional areas or an extreme limitation in one.
The ALJ stated only that C.L.S. did not have an impairment or combination of impairments meeting or medically equaling a listed impairment. The ALJ did not identify which listings were considered or explain the conclusion. The magistrate judge determined that the evidence was substantial enough to require an actual analysis of Listing 112.11, which concerns neurodevelopmental disorders and formerly was titled attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The record included evidence that C.L.S. was frequently distracted, had difficulty sustaining attention and organizing tasks, had repeated grades, struggled academically, needed additional time and directions read aloud, and had difficulty following instructions. The ALJ had also found a marked limitation in attending and completing tasks. The court agreed that this evidence raised a sufficient possibility that C.L.S. might meet Listing 112.11 and that the ALJ was required to explain whether he met that listing.
Ruling
No party objected to the report and recommendation. The court stated that the Commissioner therefore waived the right to object and to obtain appellate review, but the court independently reviewed the report for clear error and found none. The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.
The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was DENIED, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with the report. The court closed the case after directing the Clerk to terminate the pending motions and adjourn the remaining dates. The court did not determine that C.L.S. was entitled to benefits; it required a further administrative evaluation, including an explanation concerning Listing 112.11.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.