Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-06462
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Anderson v. Commissioner, Judge Oetken remanded the Social Security case for further proceedings.
Maydine Anderson and the Commissioner of Social Security, the parties to the appeal.
What happened
In Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security, Maydine Anderson sought review of a Social Security decision. Both sides asked the court to decide the case based on the existing court filings.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang recommended granting Anderson’s request and denying the Commissioner’s request. Neither party timely objected to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it only for clear error.
Judge Oetken found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, and remanded the case for further proceedings under the Social Security Act. He also directed the Clerk of Court to close the two motions.
The detailed version
- Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-06462
- James Oetken
- Mar. 29, 2022
Background
Maydine Anderson brought this Social Security appeal under Sections 205(g) and 1631(c)(3) of the Social Security Act. The case sought review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. Anderson and the Commissioner each moved for judgment on the pleadings, meaning a decision based on the allegations and materials already filed in the case.
Report and Recommendation
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang. She recommended granting Anderson’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion.
Neither party filed a timely objection. When no timely objection is filed, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Judge Oetken reviewed Judge Wang’s Report and Recommendation and found no such error.
Ruling
Judge Oetken fully adopted the Report and Recommendation. The case was remanded for further proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 24 and 25.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.