Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Sept. 12, 2022

Malone v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:21-cv-01928
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Malone v. Commissioner of Social Security: Judge Daniels upheld the denial of Supplemental Security Income after finding the administrative judge’s decision legally sound and supported by substantial evidence.

Who this affects

Quennel W. Malone’s challenge to the denial of SSI was rejected; the Commissioner’s motion was granted, Malone’s motion was denied, and the case was closed.

What happened

In Malone v. Commissioner of Social Security, Quennel W. Malone asked the court to review the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income. Malone and the Commissioner each asked for judgment based on the case filings.

Malone argued that the administrative law judge did not properly consider opinions from his treating psychiatrists or the effects of his learning disability. He also argued that the judge should have ordered another examination to develop more information about that disability.

Judge George B. Daniels adopted Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron’s recommendation in full after finding no clear error. The court granted the Commissioner’s motion, denied Malone’s motion, and closed the case, leaving the denial of SSI in place.

The detailed version

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

Case
Malone v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-01928
Judge
George Daniels
Date
Sept. 12, 2022

Background

Quennel W. Malone brought the case under the Social Security Act to challenge the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Both Malone and the Commissioner filed motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court considered Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron’s Report and Recommendation, which advised denying Malone’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion. No party objected to the recommendation.

Issues and analysis

The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake after reviewing the record. It found none. The court agreed that the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ’s) decision contained no legal error and was supported by substantial evidence, meaning relevant evidence sufficient to support the decision.

Malone argued that the ALJ failed to properly consider opinions from two treating physicians, including his treating psychiatrist. The court agreed that the ALJ did not fully incorporate those opinions into the analysis, but found that the ALJ considered the required factors and explained how persuasive each opinion was. The court said Malone’s disagreement concerned the weight given to the opinions, a matter within the ALJ’s discretion. Evidence that could support a different decision did not require overturning the ALJ’s decision.

Malone also argued that the ALJ should have ordered another examination to determine the full extent of his learning disability. The court agreed with the recommendation that Malone had not identified a missing part of the record that another examination was needed to address. The ALJ relied in part on Malone’s testimony that he could read at approximately a fourth-grade level and on intelligence testing that assessed his word reading at a third-grade level. The court concluded that this evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Malone could perform simple work requiring the lowest language-skill level described in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

Disposition

The court adopted Magistrate Judge Aaron’s Report and Recommendation in full. Judge George B. Daniels granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Malone’s motion. The Clerk was directed to terminate both motions and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.