Zapata v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. New York

Zapata v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedMay 10, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-00222

StatusUnknown

This text of Zapata v. Commissioner of Social Security (Zapata v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zapata v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC =: DEBBIE ZAPATA, | DATE FILED: 05/10/2023 | Plaintiff, 22-CV-222 (BCM) -against- ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Debbie Zapata filed this action pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for supplemental security income. The case is before me for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Court carefully reviewed the record, the briefs, and applicable law, heard oral argument from the parties on May 10, 2023, announced its decision on the record at the conclusion of the argument (the Oral Decision), and directed the parties to order a copy of the transcript and split the costs. For the reasons detailed in the Oral Decision, the Court has determined that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed legal error requiring remand. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED, the Commissioner's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 18) is DENIED, and the case is REMANDED, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the Oral Decision. On remand, the ALJ should: (1) explain the reasons for her finding that plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal Listing 1.04A, "with sufficient specificity to allow a reviewing court to evaluate that determination,” Ryan v. Astrue, 5 F. Supp. 3d 493, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); and (2) adequately analyze the supportability of the medical opinion evidence and prior administrative medical findings in the record, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b)(2), with "sufficient specificity to enable the reviewing court to decide whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence." Ayala v. Kijakazi, 2022 WL 3211463, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2022) (quoting Prieto v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2021 WL 3475625, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2021). In particular, the ALJ should identify both the "subjective reporting" on which Dr. Kaci placed "too much reliance” and the "subjective complaints" on which Drs. Saeed and Randall placed insufficient reliance. The ALJ should then reassess plaintiff's residual functional capacity based upon all the medical and other evidence in the record.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the case. Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED. May 10, 2023 Valeo BARBARA MOSES United States Magistrate Judge

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

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC =: DEBBIE ZAPATA, | DATE FILED: 05/10/2023 | Plaintiff, 22-CV-222 (BCM) -against- ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Debbie Zapata filed this action pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for supplemental security income. The case is before me for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The Court carefully reviewed the record, the briefs, and applicable law, heard oral argument from the parties on May 10, 2023, announced its decision on the record at the conclusion of the argument (the Oral Decision), and directed the parties to order a copy of the transcript and split the costs. For the reasons detailed in the Oral Decision, the Court has determined that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) committed legal error requiring remand. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 16) is GRANTED, the Commissioner's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 18) is DENIED, and the case is REMANDED, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further proceedings consistent with the Oral Decision. On remand, the ALJ should: (1) explain the reasons for her finding that plaintiff's impairments did not meet or medically equal Listing 1.04A, "with sufficient specificity to allow a reviewing court to evaluate that determination,” Ryan v. Astrue, 5 F. Supp. 3d 493, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2014); and (2) adequately analyze the supportability of the medical opinion evidence and prior administrative medical findings in the record, see 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(b)(2), with "sufficient specificity to enable the reviewing court to decide whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence." Ayala v. Kijakazi, 2022 WL 3211463, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2022) (quoting Prieto v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2021 WL 3475625, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2021). In particular, the ALJ should identify both the "subjective reporting" on which Dr. Kaci placed "too much reliance” and the "subjective complaints" on which Drs. Saeed and Randall placed insufficient reliance. The ALJ should then reassess plaintiff's residual functional capacity based upon all the medical and other evidence in the record.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the case. Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED. May 10, 2023 Valeo BARBARA MOSES United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Zapata v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zapata-v-commissioner-of-social-security-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack