Tashman v. Saul
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-00801
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tashman v. Kijakazi, Judge Furman upheld the Social Security decision, denying Tashman’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion.
Joseph Alex Tashman, whose challenge to the Social Security decision was rejected, and the Commissioner, whose cross-motion was granted.
What happened
In Tashman v. Kijakazi, Joseph Alex Tashman challenged the Social Security Administration’s decision in his case. A magistrate judge recommended denying Tashman’s request for judgment and granting the Commissioner’s request.
Tashman objected, arguing that the administrative law judge mishandled medical opinions, his testimony, and the disability evaluation process. The district court concluded that the administrative law judge’s assessment and work-capacity finding were supported by substantial evidence, meaning enough evidence supported the decision under the applicable review standard.
Judge Jesse M. Furman adopted the recommendation in full, denied Tashman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Tashman v. Saul · No. 1:21-cv-00801
- Jesse Furman
- Aug. 8, 2022
Background
Joseph Alex Tashman brought this Social Security case against the Commissioner. The court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones, who issued a Report and Recommendation on June 27, 2022. The recommendation was to deny Tashman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and grant the Commissioner’s cross-motion.
Tashman filed timely objections. The Commissioner filed a response after the court issued an order to show cause concerning the late filing; the court treated the response as timely and considered it.
Court’s analysis
The district court explained that it would review properly challenged parts of the recommendation independently and would review unchallenged parts for clear error. The court did not decide which standard applied because it would adopt the recommendation under either standard.
The court agreed that substantial evidence supported the administrative law judge’s evaluation of the medical-opinion evidence, including the decision not to fully credit the opinions of Tashman’s treating physician, Dr. David Tang. The record contained conflicting evidence and competing opinions, and resolving those conflicts was the Commissioner’s role rather than the district court’s.
The court also agreed that the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity finding—an assessment of what work-related activities Tashman could still perform—was generally supported by the medical assessments. To the extent the finding differed from those assessments, the court found it supported by a reasonable reading of the treatment records, examinations, imaging studies, and other medical notes.
Tashman did not object to the recommendation’s discussion of his testimony, so the court treated that objection as waived. The court nevertheless reviewed that portion and found it well reasoned and supported by the facts and law. The court also rejected Tashman’s argument about the fifth stage of the disability-evaluation process because his argument depended on his other objections, which lacked merit, and the administrative law judge had decided the case at stage four.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It denied Tashman’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to substitute Kilolo Kijakazi for Andrew M. Saul as the defendant, terminate the listed docket entries, and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.