Young v. Astrue

Second Circuit

Young v. Astrue

300 F. App'x 116

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 25, 2008·No. No. 07-1638-cv.·Published

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Nathaniel Young appeals the District Court’s denial of his petition for Social Security benefits. The ALJ disregarded the only medical opinion that directly described Plaintiffs residual functional capacity and then found Plaintiff able to do light work. The ALJ, however, did not state what he found Plaintiffs functional capacity to be. The ALJ was required to state those findings specifically. See Ferraris v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 582, 586 (2d Cir.1984). We therefore vacate and remand so that the ALJ can make the necessary findings as to Plaintiffs residual functional abilities.

We have considered all of Plaintiff-Appellant’s arguments. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is VACATED and REMANDED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Nathaniel Young appeals the District Court’s denial of his petition for Social Security benefits. The ALJ disregarded the only medical opinion that directly described Plaintiffs residual functional capacity and then found Plaintiff able to do light work. The ALJ, however, did not state what he found Plaintiffs functional capacity to be. The ALJ was required to state those findings specifically. See Ferraris v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 582, 586 (2d Cir.1984). We therefore vacate and remand so that the ALJ can make the necessary findings as to Plaintiffs residual functional abilities.

We have considered all of Plaintiff-Appellant’s arguments. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is VACATED and REMANDED.

Young v. Astrue, 300 F. App'x 116 (2d Cir. 2008).

Pincite

300 F. App'x 116 (Young v. Astrue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related