Opinion
Case No. 17-CV-6966 (FB)
11-12-2019
MECHELLE A. MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
Appearances: For the Plaintiff: HOWARD D. OLINSKY Olinsky Law Group 300 South State Street Syracause, New York 13202 For the Defendant: RICHARD P. DONOGHUE United States Attorney Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 By: DAVID B. MYERS Assistant United States Attorney
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
HOWARD D. OLINSKY
Olinsky Law Group
300 South State Street
Syracause, New York 13202 For the Defendant:
RICHARD P. DONOGHUE
United States Attorney
Eastern District of New York
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201 By: DAVID B. MYERS Assistant United States Attorney BLOCK, Senior District Judge :
In a prior memorandum and order, the Court remanded this case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings. In so doing, it imposed time limits on the proceedings on remand and, citing Butts v. Barnhart, 388 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2004), modified on rehearing, 416 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2005), directed the Commissioner to award benefits if those limits were exceeded. The Commissioner now seeks reconsideration of that aspect of the Court's memorandum and order.
Butts stands generally for the proposition that a district court may consider enforceable time limits if it is "reviewing an ALJ's decision at step five, rather than step four, of the five-step inquiry." Butts, 416 F.3d at 103. Since Murphy's application for benefits was denied at step five, the Court imposed time limits on remand.
The Commissioner argues that Butts is limited to cases "where the claimant is entitled to benefits absent the Commissioner's providing expert vocational testimony about the availability of appropriate jobs." Id. at 104. It is true that the failure to call a vocational expert was the error at issue, but the Court does not agree that the logic of Butts wouldn't apply with equal force to other step-five errors.
Nevertheless, the opinion also makes the more general statement that ordering calculation of benefits to enforce time limits is appropriate only if "the evidence at the fifth stage would compel a finding that [the claimant] was disabled absent the Commissioner's meeting her burden of making a contrary showing." Id. Here, the Court remanded because the medical evidence was ambiguous regarding the limitations imposed by Murphy's bypass surgery, not that it conclusively established a disability absent contrary evidence offered by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Court concludes—somewhat reluctantly—that Butts does not apply.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Commissioner's motion for reconsideration and vacates its prior directive to "immediately calculate benefits" if the time limits it imposed are exceeded.
SO ORDERED.
/S/ Frederic Block
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York
November 12, 2019