Shafer v. Saul
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-03060
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shafer v. Saul, Judge Broderick remanded Janette L. Shafer’s disability-benefits case for further proceedings.
Janette L. Shafer’s claim for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying those benefits.
What happened
In Shafer v. Saul, Janette L. Shafer challenged the Social Security Commissioner’s renewed denial of her Social Security Disability Insurance benefits after an earlier remand. She argued that the Administrative Law Judge had violated the rule governing consideration of treating-physician evidence.
Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman recommended remanding the case again because the Administrative Law Judge had not taken enough steps to develop the record as previously ordered. The recommendation concluded that the treating-physician rule was not violated in the evaluation of certain evidence, but that the failure to develop the record required further proceedings.
Neither party objected. Judge Vernon S. Broderick found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, remanded the case for further proceedings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and directed the Clerk’s Office to close the case.
The detailed version
- Shafer v. Saul · No. 1:20-cv-03060
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 18, 2022
Background
Janette L. Shafer brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. The Commissioner had denied benefits after the case returned from an earlier related proceeding in which the court had ordered further proceedings.
Shafer moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Administrative Law Judge’s findings violated the treating-physician rule. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman recommended granting Shafer’s motion to the extent that the case should be remanded for further proceedings and denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion. Judge Freeman concluded that the Administrative Law Judge had not violated the treating-physician rule in evaluating certain evidence. However, the Administrative Law Judge failed to take sufficient steps to develop the record as the court had previously directed.
District Court’s Review and Disposition
Because neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, Judge Vernon S. Broderick reviewed it for clear error. He found none and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and directed the Clerk’s Office to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.