Ramos v. Barnhart

123 Citing cases

  1. Cruz v. Barnhart

    343 F. Supp. 2d 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)   Cited 252 times
    Stating that before a court analyzes the merits of a Social Security case, "[t]he reviewing court 'must first be satisfied that the claimant has had a full hearing under the regulations and in accordance with the beneficent purposes of the [Social Security] Act'" (quoting Cruz v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1990))

    Although the ALJ Decision described Plaintiff's hospitalizations from October 27 to November 2, 1998, and from April 22 to April 23, 2000 (Plaintiffs September 14, 2001 hospitalization occurred after the ALJ Decision), the Decision failed to analyze whether they were "recent" or "recurrent." See Ramos v. Barnhart, No. 02 Civ. 3127, 2003 WL 21032012, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2003) ("While Listing 109.08 does not define `recent' or `recurrent' episodes of hypoglycemia, the testimony concerning [claimant's] episodes required analysis of what these terms meant as applied to her case."). Also, it is unclear whether the ALJ Decision was supported by substantial evidence.

  2. Felicia A. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    5:23-CV-668 (MJK) (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2024)

    ; Ramos v. Barnhart, 02 Civ. 3127, 2003 WL 21032012, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2003).

  3. Kelinne O. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    5:23-CV-00812 (BKS/ML) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    ; Ramos v. Barnhart, No. 02 Civ. 3127, 2003 WL 21032012, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2003). The first step of the test requires a determination of whether the child has engaged in substantial gainful activity.

  4. Ahmia G. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    5:22-CV-01104 (TJM/ML) (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Barnhart, 245 F.Supp.2d 479, 487-88 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); Ramos v. Barnhart, No. 02 Civ. 3127, 2003 WL 21032012, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2003). The first step of the test requires a determination of whether the child has engaged in substantial gainful activity.

  5. Vict. S.K. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    5:21-CV-1119 (GTS) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2023)

    487-88 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); Ramos v. Barnhart, 02-CV-3127, 2003 WL 21032012, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2003).

  6. Traci M. R. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    Civil Action 5:21-CV-0612 (BKS/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2022)

    Barnhart, 245 F.Supp.2d 479, 487 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); Ramos v. Barnhart, 02 Civ. 3127, 2003 WL 21032012, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2003).

  7. Tonya B v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    5:21-cv-00787 (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2022)

    ” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.924; Kittles v. Barnhart, 245 F.Supp.2d 479, 487-88 (E.D.N.Y.2003); Ramos v. Barnhart, No. 02-CV-3127, 2003 WL 21032012, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2003)).

  8. Michelle F. ex rel. I.M.U. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    Civil Action 5:21-CV-0350 (DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 27, 2022)

    ; Ramos v. Barnhart, 02 Civ. 3127, 2003 WL 21032012, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2003).

  9. Sandra C. R. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    Civil Action 5:20-CV-0923 (GTS/DEP) (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    The agency has developed a three-step protocol to be employed in determining whether a child can meet the statutory definition of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924; Kittles v. Barnhart, 245 F.Supp.2d 479, 487-88 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); Ramos v. Barnhart, 02 Civ. 3127, 2003 WL 21032012, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2003). The first step of the test requires a determination of whether the child has engaged in substantial gainful activity.

  10. Angelique S. ex rel. A.M.A.C. v. Saul

    5:20-CV-0331 (GTS) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 24, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    By regulation, the agency has prescribed a three-step evaluative process to determine whether a child can meet the statutory definition of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924; Kittles v. Barnhart, 245 F.Supp.2d 479, 487-88 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); Ramos v. Barnhart, 02-CV-3127, 2003 WL 21032012, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2003). The first step of the test, which bears some similarity to the five-step analysis employed in adult disability cases, requires determining whether the child has engaged in substantial gainful activity.