Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled June 3, 2022

Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:19-cv-07474-LGS-GRJ
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cruz v. Commissioner, Judge Schofield granted Cruz’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded for calculation of benefits.

Who this affects

Diana Cruz and the Commissioner of Social Security; the case was remanded for calculation of benefits.

What happened

In Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security, Diana Cruz and the Commissioner filed competing requests asking the court to decide the case based on the existing record. The case had previously been sent back for additional administrative proceedings.

After those proceedings, a magistrate judge recommended granting Cruz’s request, denying the Commissioner’s request, and sending the case back so benefits could be calculated. No timely objections were filed.

Judge Schofield adopted the recommendation in full, granted Cruz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for calculation of benefits.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-07474-LGS-GRJ
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
June 3, 2022

Background

Diana Cruz began the case on August 9, 2019. The parties filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings, which ask the court to decide a case based on the administrative record and the parties’ written submissions. The court previously adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and sent the case back for further administrative proceedings under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

After those proceedings, Cruz moved for judgment on the pleadings on November 10, 2021. The Commissioner of Social Security filed a cross-motion on February 14, 2022. Magistrate Judge Gary Jones issued a report and recommendation advising that Cruz’s motion be granted, the Commissioner’s motion be denied, and the case be remanded under sentence four of Section 405(g) for calculation of benefits.

Court’s Review

No timely objections were filed to the report and recommendation. In that situation, the district court reviews the record for clear error before adopting the recommendation. Judge Schofield stated that she found no error, clear or otherwise, in Judge Jones’s thorough and well-reasoned report.

Ruling

The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. It granted Cruz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the case for calculation of benefits. The Clerk of Court was asked to close the two motions.

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.