Morgan v. Saul
- Nelson Roman
- 7:20-cv-07124
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Morgan v. Saul, Judge Roman upheld the denial of Katrin A. Morgan’s disability benefits, denying her motion and granting the Commissioner’s cross-motion.
Katrin A. Morgan did not obtain disability insurance benefits through this case. The Commissioner of Social Security prevailed, and the court closed the case.
What happened
In Morgan v. Saul, Katrin A. Morgan challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits. She asked the court to rule in her favor based on the court filings.
A magistrate judge recommended denying Morgan’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion. Neither side objected, and the court found no clear error in the recommendation. The recommendation concluded that the administrative law judge properly evaluated Morgan’s ability to work and the medical opinions in the record, and that substantial evidence supported the decision.
Judge Nelson S. Roman adopted the recommendation in full. The court denied Morgan’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion, entered judgment for the Commissioner, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Morgan v. Saul · No. 7:20-cv-07124
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 9, 2022
Background
Katrin A. Morgan brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her applications for disability insurance benefits. Morgan filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Magistrate Judge Davison issued a report and recommendation advising that Morgan’s motion be denied and that the Commissioner’s cross-motion be granted. Neither party filed written objections.
Court’s analysis
Because no objections were filed, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation’s analysis and conclusions in full.
The recommendation concluded that the administrative law judge properly evaluated Morgan’s residual functional capacity—the work-related abilities she retained—and the medical opinions in the administrative record. That evaluation considered objective testing, treatment history, Morgan’s reports, and the opinions and treatment notes of medical professionals. The recommendation found that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s decision.
Ruling
The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. Morgan’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was DENIED, and the Commissioner’s cross-motion was GRANTED. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the Commissioner, terminate the motions, and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.