Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-01341
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Vyskocil adopted the recommendation, granted the Commissioner’s motion, and closed the case.
Wayne Kenneth Reed, whose challenge to the denial of Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance benefits was rejected, and the Commissioner of Social Security.
What happened
Wayne Kenneth Reed challenged the Social Security Commissioner’s decision denying his applications for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance benefits in Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security. The Commissioner asked the court to rule in its favor based on the existing court filings.
A magistrate judge recommended granting the Commissioner’s request. Reed objected, arguing that the administrative law judge did not adequately develop the record about his foot pain and hand numbness, improperly selected evidence supporting the decision, and should have considered additional evidence.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil found that Reed’s objections largely repeated his earlier arguments and found no clear error in the recommendation. She adopted the recommendation in full, granted the Commissioner’s motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-01341
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Wayne Kenneth Reed brought this action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying his applications for Supplemental Security Income benefits and Disability Insurance benefits. The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), asking the court to decide the case based on the pleadings and the existing record.
On July 4, 2022, Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones issued a Report and Recommendation advising the District Court to grant the Commissioner’s motion. Reed filed an objection, and the Commissioner responded.
The Court’s Review
The District Court explained that it could accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s recommendations. Because Reed’s objections largely repeated arguments made before the magistrate judge—including language copied nearly word for word from his earlier opposition—the District Court reviewed the recommendation only for clear error.
The court agreed with the magistrate judge’s conclusions on Reed’s three arguments:
- The administrative law judge adequately developed the record concerning Reed’s foot pain and hand numbness by supplementing the extensive medical record with targeted questions to Reed.
- Reed did not show that the administrative law judge improperly selected evidence supporting the decision. The court rejected Reed’s reliance on conflicting evidence or alternative, more restrictive interpretations of the record as insufficient to establish improper selection of evidence.
- Reed did not show that a remand was necessary to add evidence to the record. The administrative law judge already had a complete medical history, and Reed offered no new evidence, only speculation that additional evidence might become available if the case were sent back.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil found the Report and Recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law. The court adopted it in its entirety and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.