Segarra v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-05801
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Segarra v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Gardephe remanded for further proceedings after finding the disability record inadequately developed.
Iris Segarra and the Commissioner of Social Security. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings concerning Segarra’s applications for disability benefits.
What happened
In Segarra v. Commissioner of Social Security, Iris Segarra challenged the denial of her applications for Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits. She argued that the administrative law judge did not adequately develop the medical record, including by failing to obtain a complete physician questionnaire and treatment notes from fall 2017.
The Commissioner argued that the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standard and had enough evidence to decide whether Segarra was disabled. A magistrate judge recommended remanding the case because important medical evidence was missing, including information about Segarra’s ability to lift, carry, push, and pull.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe adopted that recommendation in full. He granted Segarra’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent she sought a remand for further administrative proceedings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, remanded the case to the Commissioner, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Segarra v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-05801
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 7, 2022
Background
Iris Segarra sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her applications for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Segarra claimed that she had been disabled since July 27, 2017, because of severe knee pain. An administrative law judge denied her applications on June 24, 2019, and the Appeals Council denied review on May 28, 2020, making the administrative law judge’s decision the Commissioner’s final decision.
Segarra moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), or alternatively for a remand for additional administrative proceedings. She argued that the administrative law judge failed to develop the record by not obtaining a complete copy of a 2017 physician questionnaire and by not obtaining treatment notes from fall 2017, shortly after her claimed disability onset. The Commissioner cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the administrative law judge applied the correct legal standard and that the decision was supported by sufficient evidence.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman recommended granting Segarra’s motion to the extent she sought a remand for further administrative proceedings and denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The recommendation found that the administrative law judge made no effort to obtain the complete physician questionnaire, identify who completed it, or determine what weight to give that provider’s opinion. It also found that the record lacked contemporaneous treatment notes and a complete functional assessment from a relevant treating provider.
The recommendation further concluded that the administrative law judge should have sought clarification from Dr. Cushner, the orthopedic surgeon who operated on Segarra’s knee, about his vague statement concerning Segarra’s ability to lift weight. The failure to develop the record was not harmless because the missing evidence could have addressed Segarra’s ability to lift, carry, push, or pull and whether she was disabled for at least 12 months after the alleged 2017 onset date.
District Court’s Review and Ruling
The parties did not object to the report and recommendation, despite being warned that failing to object within 14 days would waive objections and preclude appellate review. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. It found the recommendation thorough, well-reasoned, and free of clear error, and adopted it in its entirety.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted Segarra’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent she sought a remand for further administrative proceedings. He denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions, remand the case to the Commissioner of Social Security, and close the case. The order did not award benefits; it required further administrative proceedings.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.