Arias Amparo v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-10285
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Arias Amparo v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Furman adopted a recommendation remanding the case because the administrative judge overlooked non-severe mental impairments.
Maria Arias Amparo’s Social Security case was sent back to the agency for further proceedings, requiring the administrative law judge to reconsider the plaintiff’s non-severe mental impairments and potentially develop the record concerning Dr. Howard Tedoff’s opinion. The Commissioner’s cross-motion was denied.
What happened
Arias Amparo v. Commissioner of Social Security concerns a challenge to a Social Security decision. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended granting the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and sending the case back for further proceedings.
Neither side objected to the recommendation within the required time. The court therefore found that the parties had waived their right to object or seek appellate review, but it independently reviewed the recommendation and found it well reasoned and supported by the record and law.
Judge Jesse M. Furman adopted the recommendation in full and remanded the case. The court concluded that the administrative law judge failed to consider the plaintiff’s non-severe mental impairments when determining her work-related capacity. The court also denied the plaintiff’s ability to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal, 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 had referred the case to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for a report and recommendation. On July 19, 2022, Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended that Maria Arias Amparo’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, that the Commissioner of Social Security’s cross-motion be denied, and that the case be remanded for further proceedings.
Objections and Review
The report and recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object on time would waive the right to object. No objections or requests for more time were filed. The court therefore concluded that the parties had waived their right to object to the report and recommendation or obtain appellate review. Even so, the court reviewed the recommendation and found it well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with it. The court agreed that remand was required because the administrative law judge 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. On remand, the administrative law judge must also consider whether Dr. Howard Tedoff’s opinion creates an ambiguity requiring additional development of the record.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status, meaning the plaintiff could not proceed on appeal without paying the required fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.