Cerevka v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

S.D. New York

Cerevka v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 19, 2025·No. 1:23-cv-11261·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: monn nrc nanan KK DATE FILED:_ 2/19/2025 SUSANNE CEREVKA, : Plaintiff, : : 23-cv-11261 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, : Defendant. : wee KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Susanne Ingrid Cerevka seeks judicial review of a final determination by Defendant Michelle King, Acting Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) of the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”), denying her application for benefits under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Dkt. No. 9 at 2. Plaintiff seeks to vacate the Commissioner’s decision and remand for further administrative proceedings. Jd. In reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Parties were given the opportunity to raise timely objections to the report and recommendation within fourteen days. /d. The Court reviews any portion of the report to which a party makes an objection de novo; in the absence of any objection, the Court reviews the report and recommendation only for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes; Colvin v. Berryhill, 734 F. App’x 756, 758 (2d Cir. 2018). No party has objected to Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky’s Report and Recommendation. The Court identifies no clear error. The Court accordingly adopts in its entirety the Report and Recommendation for the reasons stated by Judge Tarnofsky therein, and grants Plaintiff's motion

to remand for reconsideration of the medical opinion evidence, incorporating appropriate appreciation of Dr. Ting’s treating relationship with Plaintiff and careful consideration of whether and to what extent Plaintiff's ability to function in structured settings, such as during brief medical appointments, and in lower stress situations, such as performing daily life activities, is probative of her capacity to cope with the stress of sustained activities in a work environment; as well as for development of the record regarding Plaintiff's expected rates of off- task behavior and absences. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED. et Ms. Dated: February 19, 2025 — New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: monn nrc nanan KK DATE FILED:_ 2/19/2025 SUSANNE CEREVKA, : Plaintiff, : : 23-cv-11261 (LJL) -V- : : ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, : Defendant. : wee KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Susanne Ingrid Cerevka seeks judicial review of a final determination by Defendant Michelle King, Acting Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) of the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”), denying her application for benefits under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Dkt. No. 9 at 2. Plaintiff seeks to vacate the Commissioner’s decision and remand for further administrative proceedings. Jd. In reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Parties were given the opportunity to raise timely objections to the report and recommendation within fourteen days. /d. The Court reviews any portion of the report to which a party makes an objection de novo; in the absence of any objection, the Court reviews the report and recommendation only for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes; Colvin v. Berryhill, 734 F. App’x 756, 758 (2d Cir. 2018). No party has objected to Magistrate Judge Tarnofsky’s Report and Recommendation. The Court identifies no clear error. The Court accordingly adopts in its entirety the Report and Recommendation for the reasons stated by Judge Tarnofsky therein, and grants Plaintiff's motion

to remand for reconsideration of the medical opinion evidence, incorporating appropriate appreciation of Dr. Ting’s treating relationship with Plaintiff and careful consideration of whether and to what extent Plaintiff's ability to function in structured settings, such as during brief medical appointments, and in lower stress situations, such as performing daily life activities, is probative of her capacity to cope with the stress of sustained activities in a work environment; as well as for development of the record regarding Plaintiff's expected rates of off- task behavior and absences. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case.

SO ORDERED. et Ms. Dated: February 19, 2025 — New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Cerevka v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Cerevka v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (Cerevka v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related