Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Oct. 16, 2022

Jamison v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:20-cv-06888
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Jamison v. Commissioner, Judge Roman granted Jamison’s reversal motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded for further proceedings.

Who this affects

Lisa Jane Jamison and the Commissioner of Social Security. The decision returned Jamison’s benefits dispute to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings; it did not itself award benefits.

What happened

In Jamison v. Commissioner of Social Security, Lisa Jane Jamison asked the court to reverse the agency’s decision denying her Supplemental Security Income benefits. The Commissioner asked the court to uphold the decision.

A magistrate judge recommended granting Jamison’s motion and denying the Commissioner’s motion. Because neither side objected, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Roman adopted the recommendation, granted Jamison’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, entered judgment for Jamison, and sent the matter back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The court found that the administrative law judge had not properly evaluated the medical opinions and that the record did not substantially support the finding that Jamison could occasionally reach overhead.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jamison v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:20-cv-06888
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Oct. 16, 2022

Background

Lisa Jane Jamison sued under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which allows judicial review of a Social Security decision, after the agency denied her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. Jamison moved for an order reversing the administrative law judge’s decision. The Commissioner of Social Security cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to uphold the decision based on the administrative record.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause. He recommended granting Jamison’s motion, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion, reversing the administrative law judge’s determination, and remanding the matter to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Neither party objected to the recommendation.

Court’s analysis

Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s report for clear error on the face of the record. Judge Roman found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.

The court agreed that the administrative law judge had not properly applied the Social Security Administration’s current regulations for evaluating medical opinions. Under those regulations, an administrative law judge must consider all medical opinions and assess their support, consistency with the record, treatment relationship, specialization, and other relevant factors. The administrative law judge was not required to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, but still had to evaluate the opinions under the governing standards.

The court specifically found that the record lacked substantial evidence supporting the finding that Jamison could occasionally perform overhead reaching. Because the administrative law judge had applied the wrong standard and the residual-functional-capacity finding was inadequately supported, the court determined that reversal and remand were warranted.

Disposition

Judge Roman adopted the report and recommendation, granted Jamison’s motion seeking reversal of the administrative law judge’s determination, and denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment in Jamison’s favor and remand the matter to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the report and the order. The order did not itself award benefits.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.