Zukergood v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Commissioner of Social Security
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-06464
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Zukergood v. Kijakazi, Judge Gardephe remanded the disability-benefits case for further proceedings, granted Zukergood’s motion to that extent, and denied the Commissioner’s motion.
Susan Zukergood’s disability-benefits claim was sent back to the Social Security Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The order did not award benefits.
What happened
Susan Zukergood, representing herself, asked the court to review the Social Security Commissioner’s decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. The parties each asked for judgment based on the existing court record.
A magistrate judge recommended sending the case back for more administrative proceedings and denying the Commissioner’s request. Neither side objected to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it only for obvious error and found none.
Judge Gardephe adopted the recommendation in full. The court granted Zukergood’s motion to the extent it sought a remand for further proceedings, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and sent the case back to the Commissioner; the order states that appellate review is precluded because no objections were filed.
The detailed version
- Zukergood v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-06464
- Paul Gardephe
- Jan. 24, 2023
Background
Susan Zukergood, proceeding without a lawyer, sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. Both sides filed motions for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the existing pleadings and administrative record.
The district court had referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. Judge Aaron issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Zukergood’s motion be granted to the extent she sought a remand for further administrative proceedings and that the Commissioner’s motion be denied.
Court’s Review
Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation within the required 14-day period. The court explained that failing to object ordinarily waives judicial review, although the rule may be excused in the interests of justice. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. It found the recommendation thorough, well reasoned, and free of clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted Judge Aaron’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Zukergood’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted to the extent that the case was remanded for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions and remand the case to the Commissioner. The order also states that appellate review is precluded because neither party objected to the recommendation.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.