Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Mar. 10, 2022

Ippolito v. Saul

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:20-cv-04806
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ippolito v. Saul, Judge Vyskocil granted Ippolito’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the Social Security case.

Who this affects

Richard Ippolito and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case was sent back for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

What happened

In Ippolito v. Saul, Richard Ippolito asked the court to review an administrative law judge’s decision finding him ineligible for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.

The parties filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings. Magistrate Judge Fox recommended denying the Commissioner’s motion, granting Ippolito’s motion, and sending the case back under the Social Security Act. No party objected to the recommendation.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil reviewed the recommendation for clear error and adopted it. The court denied the Commissioner’s motion, granted Ippolito’s motion, and remanded the case under the statute’s sentence-four provision.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ippolito v. Saul · No. 1:20-cv-04806
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Mar. 10, 2022

Background

Richard Ippolito brought the case against the Commissioner of Social Security to seek review of an administrative law judge’s December 12, 2018 decision finding him ineligible for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.

The district court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Fox. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, a decision based on the existing court filings rather than a trial. Magistrate Judge Fox issued a report and recommendation advising the court to deny the Commissioner’s motion, grant Ippolito’s motion, and remand the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Court’s Analysis

No party filed timely objections to the report and recommendation. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found that Magistrate Judge Fox’s reasoning and conclusions were sound and well supported, and adopted the recommendation.

Disposition

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, Ippolito’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.