Estrada v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
22
MEMO ENDORSEMENT on REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 16 Motion to Remand to Agency filed by Commissioner of Social Security, 21 Report and Recommendations. ENDORSEMENT: The plaintiff has not appeared, despite the Magistrate Judge's repeat ed efforts to locate him. There are no objections. The motion is granted, the court adopts the Report as its opinion. No certificate of appealability shall issue. Any appeal would be taken in bad faith. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 6/25/2014) (ja)
·CSDC Sl>S\'
DOClJME:"T
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
J;LECl1lO~lCALl:.T
nuo
·ooc •: _ _ ___._ _
·---·-------------------------------··-··--------···--X
~ATE
Fil.ED:_ 511212014
.,.
Danny ESTRADA,
13-CV-04278 (CM)(SN)
Plaintiff,
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
-againstCOMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
..........
. -~.·-~:"~ £.~\.' ::~~· ... i. :
. ~ ·:··~~.::~:~.JJ'::: ·._: :.'
---···---····--·----·-·······-·----------·····-----------X
SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge.
'
.........
TO THE HONORABLE COLLEEN MCMAHON:
i-·
The plaintiff Danny Estrada brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the final detennination of the Commissioner
of Social Security denying his application for disability benefits. The Commissioner has flied an
unopposed motion for an order reversing the Commissioner's final detennination and remanding
the case for further administrative proceedings. For the reasons set forth below, I recommend
that the Commissioner's motion be GRANTED, and the case be remanded to the Commissioner
S'
I
8
1~
,~
,~
for further development.
BACKGROUND
ME~~O
ENDORSED
The following facts are taken from the administrative record.
The plaintiff Danny Estrada, now 23 years old, began receiving Supplemental Security
Income ("SSI") benefits when he was three years old due to his attention deficient disorder and
asthma. On June 3, 2008, the Social Security Administration (the "SSA") sent Estrada, in care of
his mother, Merry Garcia, a letter stating that the SSA would begin the process of redetermining
18. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.987. On January 28, 2009, the SSA sent a written determination to
Estrada informing him that his "occasional asthma attacks and ... behavioral problem" do not
constitute a disability eligible for SSI benefits under the adult standard and that his benefits
would stop. {R. 66.) Estrada and his mother appeared for a reconsideration hearing and, on May
21, 20 I 0, received a disposition affirming the finding that he is not disabled. Estrada then
appeared prose before Administrative Law Judge Moises Penalver {the "ALJ") on March 8,
2012, and was denied disability benefits in a June 15, 2012 written decision. The Appeals
Council denied Estrada's application for review of the ALJ's decision on April 30, 2013, thereby
rendering the decision of the Commissioner final.
On June 19, 2013, Estrada, proceeding prose, filed this action pursuant to§ 20S(g) of the
Social Security Act (the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 40S{g), before the Honorable Colleen McMahon.
On July l 8, 2013, Judge McMahon referred this case to my docket for a report and
recommendation. The Commissioner answered the complaint and filed the administrative record
on December 20, 2013. On March 7, 2014, the Commissioner tiled this motion to remand.
Estrada did not appear for a telephone conference the Court scheduled to discuss the motion, nor
did he respond to the Court's order allowing him to, by April 7, 2014, submit a response to the
Commissioner's motion or request pro bono counsel. The Court thus considers this matter fully
submitted.
DISCUSSION
L
Legal Standards
A.
Standard of Review
A party may move for judgment on the pleadings "[a)fter the pleadings are closed - but
early enough not to delay trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. l 2(c). A Rule 12(c) motion should be granted "if,
2
from the pleadings, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Dargahi v.
Honda Lease Trust, 370 F. App'x 172, 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
In reviewing a decision of the Commissioner, a court may "enter, upon the pleadings and
transcript of the record, a judgment affinning, modifying, or reversing the decision of the
Commissioner ... with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A
determination of the ALJ may be set aside only if it is based upon legal error or is not supported
by substantial evidence. Rosa v. Callahan. 168 F.3d 72, 77 (2d Cir. 1999).
"Before detennining whether the Commissioner's conclusions are supported by
substantial evidence, however, 'we 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." Moran v. Astrue, 569 F.3d I 08, 110 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Cruz v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 8,
11 (2d Cir. 1990)). The Act "must be liberally applied, for it is a remedial statute intended to
include not exclude." Cruz, 912 F.2d at 11. This is particularly true in the case of
prose claimants, who "are entitled to a liberal construction of their pleadings," and, therefore,
their complaints "should be read to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Green v.
United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see
Alvarez v. Barnhart, 03 Civ. 8471 (RWS), 2005 WL 78591, at •1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2005)
(articulating liberal prose standard in reviewing denial of disability benefits).
Il.
Definition of Disability
A claimant is disabled under the Act ifthe claimant demonstrates an "inability to engage
in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental
impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to
last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)( I )(A). A
3
determinable physical or mental impairment is defined as one that "results from anatomical,
physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable
clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(3). A claimant will be
determined to be disabled only if the impairments are "of such severity that he is not only unable
to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage
in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy ...." 42
U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A).
When a minor benefits-recipient reaches the age of 18, the Commissioner must
"redetermine ... eligibility ... by applying the criteria used in determining initial eligibility for
individuals who are age 18 or older." 42 U.S.C. § l 382c(a)(3)(H)(iii); see also 20 C.F.R. §
404.1520, pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, pt. A. In connection with the redetermination, the claimant
has "the right to submit medical and other evidence for [the Commissioner's] consideration." 20
C.F.R. § 416.987(d)(v).
C.
The ALJ's Duty to Develop the Record
When the ALJ assesses a claimant's alleged disability, the ALJ must develop the
claimant's medical history for at least a 12-month period. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(S)(b), 20 C.F.R. §
404. ! S l 2(d). Further, the Act authorizes the Commissioner to "issue subpoenas requiring the
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of any evidence that relates to any
matter under investigation." 42 U.S.C. § 405(d).
The Court of Appeals considers this statutory authorization to impose an affirmative
duty on the ALJ to develop the record.~ Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1996)
(finding that the duty of an ALJ to develop the record personally "arises from the
Commissioner's regulatory obligations to develop a complete medical record before making a
4
disability detennination"). Indeed, before a district court can evaluate the ALJ's conclusions, the
court must ensure that the claimant received a full and fair hearing. See Echevarria v. Sec'y of
Health & Human Servs., 685 F .2d 751, 755 (2d Cir. 1982) (holding that an ALJ must ensure that
the claimant had a "full hearing under the Secretary's regulations and in accordance with the
beneficent purposes of the Act"); Cullinane v. Sec'y ofDep't of Health & Human Scrvs., 728
F.2d 137, 137 (2d Cir. 1984). "The ALJ's duty to develop the administrative record encompasses
not only the duty to obtain a claimant's medical records and reports but also the duty to question
the claimant adequately about any subjective complaints and the impact of the claimant's
impairments on the claimant's functional capacity." Brown v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 709 F. Supp.
2d 248, 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
"Even when a claimant is represented by counsel, it is the well-established rule in our
circuit 'that the social security ALJ, unlike a judge in a trial, must on behalf of all claimants ...
affirmatively develop the record in light of the essentially non-adversarial nature of a benefits
proceeding."' Moran, 569 F.3d at 112 (quoting Lamay v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 562 F.3d 503,
508-09 (2d Cir. 2009)). When a claimant is prose, however, "the ALJ is under a heightened duty
'to scrupulously and conscientiously probe into, inquire of, and explore for all the relevant
facts."' Cruz v. Sullivan, 912 F.2d 8, 11 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting Echevarria, 685 F.2d at 755)
(internal quotation marks omitted). This entails a heightened obligation to ensure both the
completeness and the fairness of the administrative hearing. See Cullinane, 728 F.2d at 137
(describing an ALJ's "affinnative duty to ensure that prose disability insurance benefit
claimants receive full and fair hearings"). When the ALJ has failed to develop the record
adequately, the district court must remand to the Commissioner for further development. See.
~.Pratts,
94 F.3d at 39.
5
The ALJ's duty to develop the record is enhanced when the disability in question is a
psychiatric impairment. See Camilo v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., J 1 Civ. 1345
(DAB)(MHD), 2013 WL 5692435, at •22 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2013) ("[l)t is the ALJ's duty to
develop the record and resolve any known ambiguities, and that duty is enhanced when the
disability in question is a psychiatric impairment."). The Regulations articulate that claims
concerning mental disorders require a robust examination that is sensitive to the dynamism of
mental illnesses and the coping mechanisms that claimants develop to manage them:
Particular problems are often involved in evaluating mental impairments
in individuals who have long histories of repeated hospitalizations or
prolonged outpatient care with supportive therapy and medication. For
instance, if you have chronic organic, psychotic, and affective disorders,
you may commonly have your life structured in such a way as to minimize
your stress and reduce your symptoms and signs. In such a case, you may
be much more impaired for work than your symptoms and signs would
indicate. The results of a single examination may not adequately describe
your sustained ability to function. It is, therefore, vital that we review all
pertinent information relative to your condition, especially at times of
increased stress.
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. I § 12.00(E). Similarly, Social Security Ruling 85-15 directs
the Commissioner to consider that "determining whether these individuals will be able to adapt
to the demands or 'stress' of the workplace is often extremely difficult." Ruling 85-15 explains
that this difficulty arises because persons with mental illnesses "adopt a highly restricted and/or
inflexible lifestyle within which they appear to function well." When claimants are in structured
settings, they arc able to function adequately "by lowering psychological pressures, by
medication, and by support from services." SSR 85-15 (Jan. I, 1985).
II.
Analysis
The Commissioner moves for this case to be remanded because, although the ALJ told
Estrada during the hearing that he would obtain Estrada's "updated mental health treatment
records, ... these records were not obtained and there is no indication how this development issue
6
was resolved." (Mot. at 3.) In the absence of a complete record and a
full and fair hearing, the
Court cannot detennine whether the ALJ's conclusions are supported by substantial evidence and
thus must remand for further development. Moran, 569 F.3d at 110; Pratts, 94 F.3d at 39. The
AU should further develop the administrative record by procuring and considering Estrada's
updated mental health treatment records and by taking any additional action necessary to comply
with the standards set forth in this report. The Court therefore recommends that the
Commissioner's motion to remand be granted.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the Commissioner's unopposed
motion to REMAND for further development of the administrative record be GRANTED .
•
•
•
NOTICE OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS
TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The parties shall have fourteen days from the service of this Report and Recommendation
to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d) (adding three additional days when service
is made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F)). A party may respond to another
party's objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Such objections shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court, with courtesy copies delivered to the
chambers of the Honorable Colleen McMahon at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, and to any opposing parties.
~28
U.S.C. §
636(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(d), 72(b). Any requests for an extension of time for filing
objections must be addressed to Judge McMahon. The failure to file these timely objections will
7
result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal.~ 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)( I); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b), 72(b); Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
SO ORDERED.
S~RN ~d'L--United States Magistrate Judge
DATED:
New York, New York
May 12, 2014
cc:
Danny Estrada (By Chambers)
576 Timpson Place, Apt 4C
Bronx, NY 10455
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?