Mosley v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Ona Wang
- 1:20-cv-07940
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mosley v. Kijakazi, Judge Wang ordered the parties to clarify which medical-evidence rule applies and propose supplemental briefing.
Deborah Mosley and Kilolo Kijakazi, the parties to the Social Security benefits case.
What happened
In Mosley v. Kijakazi, Deborah Mosley brought claims for Social Security benefits under both Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The court noted that her claims had a protective filing date of November 14, 2016.
The parties’ joint filing did not explain whether the older treating-physician rule or newer regulations for evaluating medical opinions applied to Mosley’s claims. The court therefore directed the parties to discuss the issue and submit a joint status letter.
The status letter was due July 26, 2022, and had to identify the applicable rule and propose a schedule for supplemental briefing. Judge Ona T. Wang did not decide Mosley’s entitlement to benefits in this order.
The detailed version
- Mosley v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-07940
- Ona Wang
- July 12, 2022
Background
Deborah Mosley filed concurrent claims for benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The opinion states that the claims had a protective filing date of November 14, 2016. The parties submitted a joint stipulation, but it did not address which rule governed the evaluation of medical evidence in Mosley’s case.
Issue
The court identified a need to determine whether the treating-physician rule or newer regulations in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c and 416.920c applied. The cited newer regulations address how medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings are evaluated for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017.
Order
The court directed the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint status letter by July 26, 2022. The letter had to identify the applicable rule and propose a briefing schedule for supplemental briefing applying that rule. The order did not decide the merits of Mosley’s benefit claims or determine which party should prevail.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.