Ballesteros v. Kijakazi
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-03198
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ballesteros v. Kijakazi, Judge Karas adopted a recommendation, granted Ballesteros’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded for benefits.
Odilma Ballesteros receives a judgment in her favor, and the matter returns to the Social Security Commissioner for calculation of benefits. The Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied.
What happened
In Ballesteros v. Kijakazi, Odilma Ballesteros asked the court to review the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and/or supplemental security income benefits. She asked for judgment in her favor and a remand to the Social Security Commissioner.
A magistrate judge recommended granting Ballesteros’s motion and denying the Commissioner’s competing motion. Neither side objected to that recommendation, so the court reviewed it for clear error.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas adopted the recommendation in full. The court granted Ballesteros’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, entered judgment for Ballesteros, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for calculation of benefits.
The detailed version
- Ballesteros v. Kijakazi · No. 7:22-cv-03198
- Kenneth Karas
- June 9, 2023
Background
Odilma Ballesteros sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits and/or supplemental security income benefits. Ballesteros filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asking the court to rule based on the existing record. The Commissioner of Social Security filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Report and Recommendation
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones. Judge Jones recommended granting Ballesteros’s motion and denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion. Neither party filed objections. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the magistrate judge’s analysis or conclusion.
Ruling
The court found no substantive error in the Report and Recommendation and adopted it in its entirety. It granted Ballesteros’s motion to remand and/or for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings, entered judgment in Ballesteros’s favor, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for calculation of benefits. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motions and close the case.
Classification
This is a substantive ruling because the court reviewed a Social Security benefits decision and remanded the matter for calculation of benefits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.