Mancuso v. Kijakazi

Background

Denise Mancuso sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for a period of disability and related insurance benefits. Mancuso moved for judgment on the pleadings, which asks the court to decide the case based on the parties’ written submissions. The Commissioner filed a competing motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause. He issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the court deny Mancuso’s motion and grant the Commissioner’s motion. Mancuso filed objections.

Objections and Review

Mancuso raised two specific objections. First, she argued that the Report and Recommendation confused the stability of her condition with its lack of severity when reviewing the administrative law judge’s residual functional capacity determination. Second, she argued that the Report and Recommendation incorrectly concluded that her treating physician’s opinion was unpersuasive.

The court explained that specific written objections generally require a fresh review of the challenged portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation. But objections that merely repeat arguments already presented to the magistrate judge are reviewed only for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record or law. The court found that Mancuso’s objections rehashed her earlier arguments and did not explain why the recommendation should be rejected. The court also stated that fresh review would produce the same result.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas found no error, clear or otherwise, and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Mancuso’s motion and granted the Commissioner’s motion. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions and close the case.