Spain v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-04837
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Spain v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Roman denied the Commissioner’s motion, granted Spain’s motion, and remanded the SSI case for further proceedings.
Russell Spain and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case returns to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings, and the order does not itself award benefits.
What happened
In Spain v. Commissioner of Social Security, Russell Spain challenged the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. The administrative law judge had denied his claim, and the Commissioner argued that decision was supported by the evidence and contained no legal error.
The court found that the administrative law judge had not adequately developed the record, including by failing to obtain medical opinions from treating physicians. The court also found insufficient support for the conclusion that Spain could perform sedentary work, because the decision did not adequately address his need to change positions or the drowsiness caused by his opioid pain medication.
Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Spain’s cross-motion, and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Spain v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:20-cv-04837
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 13, 2022
Background
Russell Spain brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. Spain applied for benefits in December 2015, alleging that his disability began on July 7, 2014. The Commissioner denied the application, and an administrative law judge later denied the claim after two hearings at which Spain appeared without a lawyer. The Appeals Council denied review.
The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to affirm the administrative law judge’s decision. Spain filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to reverse the decision and remand the case for additional administrative proceedings. Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy recommended denying the Commissioner’s motion, granting Spain’s cross-motion, and remanding the case.
Court’s Review
Neither party objected to the report and recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.
The court agreed that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record. Although the administrative law judge requested medical records, she did not obtain medical opinions from treating physicians. The court also noted that the administrative law judge twice recognized that the record contained limited treatment notes. A residual functional capacity form from Dr. Colden, which the Appeals Council declined to review, could have supplied potentially material information about Spain’s treatment and the claims the administrative law judge found not credible.
The court also agreed that substantial evidence did not support the finding that Spain could perform sedentary work. The administrative law judge did not discuss in the residual functional capacity assessment Spain’s need to alternate between sitting, standing, and walking, or explain why she rejected Dr. Shtock’s findings on that issue while giving his opinion great weight. The administrative law judge also did not expressly consider Spain’s drowsiness from opioid pain medication when determining his residual functional capacity.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. The court denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Spain’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation. The order did not itself award SSI benefits.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.