Caproni Brown v. Kijakazi
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-02452
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Caproni Brown v. Kijakazi, Judge Furman remanded the Social Security case after adopting a recommendation finding the administrative law judge inadequately explained bathroom access and off-task time.
Lisa Ann Caproni Brown and the Social Security Administration; the case returns for further administrative proceedings concerning the explanation of bathroom access and related off-task time.
What happened
In Caproni Brown v. Kijakazi, a magistrate judge recommended granting Lisa Ann Caproni Brown’s request for judgment on the pleadings, denying the Commissioner’s competing request, and sending the case back for more administrative proceedings. The recommendation said the administrative law judge had not adequately explained the decision about Brown’s need for bathroom access and related time away from work activities.
Neither side filed objections to the recommendation or requested more time to do so. The court therefore found that the Commissioner had given up the right to object or seek appellate review of the recommendation, and the court also independently reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Judge Jesse M. Furman adopted the recommendation in full, granted Brown’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 17 and close the case.
The detailed version
- Caproni Brown v. Kijakazi · No. 1:22-cv-02452
- Jesse Furman
- June 29, 2023
Background
Lisa Ann Caproni Brown brought this Social Security case against Kilolo Kijakazi, identified in the caption as the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. The district court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge Aaron, who issued a Report and Recommendation on June 14, 2023.
Recommendation and objections
The magistrate judge recommended that Brown’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted, that the Commissioner’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings be denied, and that the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings. The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that they had 14 days after service to object and that failing to object would waive the right to object.
No objections or requests for an extension were filed by the date of the district court’s order. The court held that the Commissioner had waived the right to object to the Report and Recommendation or to obtain appellate review. Even so, the court reviewed the recommendation. For portions without timely objections, the court explained that it needed to determine only whether the record showed clear error. It found the Report and Recommendation well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Merits and ruling
The court concluded that the administrative law judge had failed to adequately explain the determination concerning Brown’s need for bathroom access and the corresponding amount of time she would be off-task. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It therefore granted Brown’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the recommendation. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 17 and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.