Parry v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-03827
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Parry v. Commissioner, Judge Oetken remanded the benefits case for further proceedings and denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Elizabeth Anne Parry and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; the matter must undergo further administrative proceedings before the Commissioner.
What happened
Elizabeth Anne Parry sued the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration to challenge the denial of her claims for disability benefits and supplemental security income. She asked the court to send the matter back for more administrative proceedings.
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox recommended granting Parry’s request for remand and denying the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Neither party timely objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Judge J. Paul Oetken found no clear error and adopted the recommendation. The court remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Parry v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · No. 1:20-cv-03827
- James Oetken
- Mar. 29, 2022
Background
Elizabeth Anne Parry brought this action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of her claims for disability benefits and supplemental security income benefits. Parry moved to remand the matter for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the parties’ pleadings.
Report and Recommendation
The court had referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. Judge Fox reviewed the record and recommended that the court grant Parry’s motion for remand and deny the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Court’s Ruling
No party filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation. Judge J. Paul Oetken therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record. He found no such error and fully adopted the recommendation. The court remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings and denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.