Vilma S. v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Jones
- 1:23-cv-00025
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Vilma S. v. Commissioner, Judge Jones denied the Commissioner’s motion to alter or amend a judgment remanding Vilma S.’s benefits case.
The ruling affects Vilma S.’s Social Security benefits case and the Commissioner’s request to change the court’s remand instructions. The earlier remand for further administrative proceedings remains in place.
What happened
In Vilma S. v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court had previously ruled for Vilma S. and sent her disability-benefits case back for further administrative proceedings. The earlier ruling found that the administrative law judge had unreasonably evaluated a consulting psychiatrist’s opinion and had not obtained a work-related limitations assessment from Vilma S.’s treating psychologist.
The Commissioner did not challenge the remand itself. Instead, the Commissioner asked the court to change the part of the judgment directing the administrative law judge to seek an opinion from the treating psychologist, arguing that the instruction conflicted with newer regulations and interfered with the judge’s discretion.
The court denied the Commissioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. Judge Gary R. Jones concluded that developing a full and fair record can still require contacting treating providers under the newer regulations, and that an opinion from Vilma S.’s treating psychologist was necessary to properly decide whether she was disabled under the Social Security Act.
The detailed version
- Vilma S. v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:23-cv-00025
- Jones
- Apr. 3, 2024
Background
Vilma S. applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income Benefits in October 2020. The Commissioner of Social Security denied the applications, and Vilma S., represented by counsel, sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3).
In an earlier decision, the court granted Vilma S. judgment on the pleadings and directed a remand for further administrative proceedings. The court had found that the administrative law judge unreasonably read the medical record when evaluating Dr. Seth Sebold’s opinion that Vilma S. had mild to moderate difficulty sustaining concentration or working at a consistent pace. The court also found that the administrative law judge had erred by failing to obtain an assessment of work-related limitations from Vilma S.’s treating psychologist, Dr. Lucia Smith-Wexler.
Motion to Alter or Amend
The Commissioner moved under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend the judgment. A Rule 59(e) motion generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear legal error or prevent manifest injustice. The Commissioner did not present new evidence or identify an intervening change in the law, and instead argued that the court’s instruction to obtain an opinion from Dr. Smith-Wexler was inconsistent with newer regulations governing medical-opinion evidence. The Commissioner also argued that the instruction improperly limited the administrative law judge’s discretion to resolve gaps or inconsistencies in the record.
The Commissioner did not challenge the decision to remand the case. The dispute concerned only the direction to seek an opinion from Vilma S.’s treating psychologist.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that, even though the treating-physician rule had been abolished, the duty to develop the record continued to apply to claims governed by the newer regulations. That duty includes contacting treating providers when necessary to give the claimant a full and fair hearing based on an adequately developed record.
The court concluded that, for the reasons stated in its earlier decision, obtaining an opinion from Dr. Smith-Wexler was necessary to properly determine whether Vilma S. was disabled under the Social Security Act.
Disposition
The court denied the Commissioner’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. The opinion does not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.