Greene v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-08550
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Green v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security: Judge Roman remanded the disability-benefits case after finding the administrative law judge mishandled expert opinion evidence.
Richard Earle Green and the Social Security Administration, whose decision denying Green’s disability insurance and supplemental security income applications was remanded for further proceedings.
What happened
Richard Earle Green challenged the Social Security Administration’s denial of his applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. Green asked the court to rule in his favor and send the case back to the agency; the Acting Commissioner asked for similar relief based on the written submissions.
A magistrate judge recommended granting Green’s motion and denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion. Neither side objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court agreed that the administrative law judge did not properly evaluate opinions from several experts or determine how those opinions applied to Green’s mental limitations.
Judge Nelson S. Roman found that these errors were not harmless, adopted the recommendation in full, granted Green’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, entered judgment for Green, and remanded the matter to the agency for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Greene v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:21-cv-08550
- Nelson Roman
- Mar. 6, 2023
Background
Richard Earle Green brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. Green alleged that his disability began on August 16, 2016. The agency initially denied his application. After a hearing on January 13, 2020, an administrative law judge decided on September 4, 2020, that Green was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The Appeals Council denied review in March 2021.
Motions and Report
Green moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings and asked the court to remand the matter to the agency for further proceedings. The Acting Commissioner filed a cross-motion under the same rule seeking similar relief. The court referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Andrew Krause, who issued a report and recommendation recommending that Green’s motion be granted and the Commissioner’s cross-motion be denied.
Court’s Analysis
Neither party timely objected to the report and recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error. After reviewing the recommendation, the court found no clear error. The court agreed with the magistrate judge that the administrative law judge failed, among other things, to properly evaluate the opinions of several experts, determine the weight those opinions deserved, and assess how they applied to Green’s mental limitations. The court also agreed that these errors could not be treated as harmless.
Disposition
The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. Green’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the Commissioner’s cross-motion was denied. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment in Green’s favor and remanded the matter to the agency for further proceedings. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the two motions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.