Arias Amparo v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-10285
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Maria Ariasamparo v. Commissioner of Social Security: Judge Furman remanded the case because the ALJ overlooked non-severe mental impairments when assessing residual functional capacity.
Maria Ariasamparo and the Social Security Administration; the case must proceed with further administrative review before the ALJ.
What happened
In Maria Ariasamparo v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court reviewed a recommendation that the Social Security case be sent back for further proceedings.
The recommendation concluded that the Administrative Law Judge did not consider Maria Ariasamparo’s non-severe mental impairments when determining her ability to work. It also noted that the judge should consider whether a medical opinion created an ambiguity requiring more evidence.
Judge Jesse Furman adopted the recommendation in full and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Arias Amparo v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-10285
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 3, 2022
Background
The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation without objections. The recommendation concluded that remand was required in this Social Security case because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not consider the plaintiff’s non-severe mental impairments when determining her residual functional capacity, meaning her remaining ability to perform work-related activities.
Ruling
The court found the Report and Recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law, and adopted it in its entirety. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation. On remand, the ALJ should consider whether Dr. Howard Tedoff’s opinion creates an ambiguity that requires further development of the record.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied in forma pauperis status, meaning permission to proceed with an appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.