Ramos v. Social Security
- Ona Wang
- 1:20-cv-09436
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ramos v. Social Security, Judge Wang denied the Commissioner’s reconsideration motion, leaving the earlier remand for further proceedings unchanged.
Linda Ramos and the Commissioner of Social Security. The denial left the earlier remand for further proceedings in place.
What happened
In Ramos v. Social Security, the court had previously granted Linda Ramos’s request for judgment, rejected the Commissioner’s request for judgment, and sent the Social Security decision back for further proceedings.
The Commissioner asked the court to revise that earlier order by removing a citation to Peed v. Sullivan and clarifying its explanation about the Appeals Council’s handling of new and important evidence. The Commissioner did not ask to undo the remand.
Judge Ona T. Wang denied the Commissioner’s motion. She found no clear error or serious unfairness in the earlier order and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Ramos v. Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-09436
- Ona Wang
- May 11, 2023
Background
On March 3, 2023, the Court granted Linda Ramos’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner of Social Security’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, and remanded the Commissioner’s decision for further proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner then filed a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The Commissioner did not seek to undo the remand. Instead, the Commissioner asked the Court to amend the earlier order in two ways: remove its reference to Peed v. Sullivan and clarify the reasoning that the Appeals Council failed to consider new and material evidence.
Legal standard
A motion for reconsideration asks a court to revisit an earlier decision and is narrowly limited. The Court explained that reconsideration may be appropriate because of a change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Because the Commissioner identified neither a change in controlling law nor new evidence, the Court treated the motion as relying on alleged clear error or manifest injustice.
Court’s analysis
The Court rejected the Commissioner’s argument about Peed. It explained that Peed is not binding on the Court and that the Second Circuit had not addressed it since 2013, before the revised Social Security regulations were issued in 2017. The Court did not decide whether Peed conclusively remains good law in the Second Circuit. It held instead that quoting Peed did not amount to clear error under Rule 59(e). The Court also noted that other courts in the Second Circuit continued to cite Peed in cases involving applications filed after March 27, 2017.
The Court further explained that Peed connected an administrative law judge’s duty to make reasonable efforts to obtain a treating physician’s report with the duty to ensure a full hearing and with the purpose of the Social Security Act. The Court stated that this duty remains good law. Regarding the requested clarification about the Appeals Council’s consideration of new evidence, the Court found no clear error or manifest injustice, particularly because the Commissioner did not contest the remand.
Disposition
The Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF 30. The opinion did not alter the earlier remand order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.