Opinion
21-CV-350 (FB)
02-26-2024
BRIAN O'KEITH JONES, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
For the Plaintiff: CHRISTOPHER JAMES BOWES For the Defendants: JOHANNY SANTANA
For the Plaintiff:
CHRISTOPHER JAMES BOWES
For the Defendants:
JOHANNY SANTANA
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BLOCK, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE:
On February 23, 2024, the Court remanded this matter to the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) for further proceedings on the plaintiff's claim for benefits. The Court instructed that the proceedings on remand were to be completed within 60 days, with an additional 60 days for any administrative appeals to be completed. The plaintiff now asks the Court to clarify that failure to comply with those deadlines will result in an automatic award of benefits.
The Court's omission of a sanction for noncompliance was not an oversight. Although the Second Circuit has held that a district court has the discretion to impose such a sanction, see Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377, 387 (2d Cir. 2004), its holding is limited to cases at step five of the Commissioner's familiar five-step claim evaluation process, that is, “cases where the claimant is entitled to benefits absent the Commissioner's providing expert vocational testimony about the availability of appropriate jobs.” Butts v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 101, 104 (2d Cir. 2005) (decision on rehearing). The plaintiff's claim was denied at step four.
Thus, the deadlines imposed by the Court were intended to admonish the Commissioner for the delay in processing the claim and to urge him to act more expeditiously on remand. Plaintiff's request for clarification is denied.
The Court has considered excising the deadlines from its memorandum and order but does not wish to punish the plaintiff for his counsel's tactical error. Counsel, on the other hand, would be well advised to reread Aesop's tale of the dog and its shadow.
SO ORDERED.