Sidney H. v. Saul

Full title: SIDNEY H., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Jun 23, 2021

3:20-CV-750 (CFH) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 23, 2021)

Opinion

3:20-CV-750 (CFH)

06-23-2021

SIDNEY H., Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Lachman, Gorton Law Firm Attorneys for plaintiff PETER A. GORTON, ESQ. Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Attorney for defendant SEAN SANTEN, ESQ. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Lachman, Gorton Law Firm Attorneys for plaintiff

PETER A. GORTON, ESQ.

Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Attorney for defendant

SEAN SANTEN, ESQ. Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

ORDER ^{[ 1}

1 This matter, which is before me on consent of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), has been treated in accordance with the procedures set forth in General Order No. 18. Under that General Order, once issue has been joined, an action such as this is considered procedurally as if cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings had been filed pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

CHRISTIAN F. HUMMEL U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Currently pending before the Court in this action, in which plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse administrative determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), are cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. Nos. 11, 14. Oral argument was conducted in connection with these motions on the record on June 22, 2021. At the close of the argument, I issued a bench decision in which, after applying the requisite deferential review standard, I found that the administrative law judge’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, providing further detail regarding my reasoning and addressing the specific issues raised by plaintiff in the appeal.

After due deliberation, and based upon the Court’s oral bench decision, which has been transcribed, and is attached to this order and incorporated herein by reference, it is hereby

ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED to the extent that this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this decision; and

2. Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 14) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.