Whetstone v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-03009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Whetstone v. Commissioner, Judge Roman adopted the recommendation, denied Whetstone’s motion, and granted the Commissioner’s motion.
The judgment was against Adam Whetstone’s claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits and in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security; the action was terminated.
What happened
In Whetstone v. Commissioner of Social Security, Adam Whetstone challenged the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The Social Security Administration found that he was not disabled under the Social Security Act.
A magistrate judge recommended denying Whetstone’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Neither side timely objected, so the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a new review of the entire case.
Judge Roman found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full. The court denied Whetstone’s motion, granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, entered judgment for the Commissioner, and terminated the action.
The detailed version
- Whetstone v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:22-cv-03009
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 20, 2023
Background
Adam Whetstone brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which permits judicial review of a Social Security benefits decision. He challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The Commissioner had determined that Whetstone was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.
Whetstone initially applied for disability benefits and later received a hearing before an administrative law judge. That judge denied the application. The Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council later vacated that decision and sent the matter back for further proceedings. After another administrative law judge denied the application, the Appeals Council denied Whetstone’s request for review. Whetstone then filed this federal case.
Report and Recommendation
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause. Whetstone filed a motion, and the Commissioner filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). A judgment on the pleadings resolves a case based on the pleadings and the applicable law, without a trial. Judge Krause recommended denying Whetstone’s motion and granting the Commissioner’s cross-motion.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Neither Whetstone nor the Commissioner timely objected to the report and recommendation. The district court therefore reviewed it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record or analysis. The court found no clear error and concluded that the report and recommendation was supported by fact and law. It adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety, including its conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to support Whetstone’s claim that he had a disability.
The court denied Whetstone’s motion and granted the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. It entered judgment in favor of the Commissioner, directed the clerk to terminate the motions, and terminated the action.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.