King v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
____________________________________________
LAURIE K.,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	3:25-CV-411
(MAD/MJK)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
____________________________________________
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
OLINSKY LAW GROUP 	HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ.
250 South Clinton Street - Suite 210 	MATTHEW MCGARRY, ESQ.
Syracuse, New York 13202
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 	CANDACE BROWN CASEY, ESQ.
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
Attorney for Defendant
Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER
Plaintiff Laurie K. commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review
of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for supplemental
security income benefits, which she filed on April 29, 2015. See Dkt. No. 1. In a Report-
Recommendation dated December April 21, 2026, Magistrate Mitchell J. Katz recommended that
(1) Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted; (2) Defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings be denied; and (3) the Commissioner's decision be reversed and
remanded solely for the calculation of benefits. See Dkt. No. 28. Neither party filed objections.
Case 3:25-cv-00411-MAD-MJK Document 29 Filed 05/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
When no objections are made to a magistrate judge's recommendations, the Court reviews
a report-recommendation for only clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 229
(N.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing FED. R. C IV. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Note: 1983); see also
Nambiar v. Cent. Orthopedic Grp., LLP, 158 F.4th 349, 359 (2d Cir. 2025). "When performing
such a 'clear error' review, 'the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Peterson, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 229 (citation
omitted). After the appropriate review, "the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The Court finds no clear error in the Report-Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Katz
appropriately recited the procedural and factual background of the case as well as the applicable
legal standards. See Dkt. No. 28 at 1-10. Magistrate Judge Katz then correctly concluded that
Plaintiff's case should be remanded solely for the calculation of benefits. As Magistrate Judge
Katz noted, both parties agreed that the case required remand. See id. at 10; see also Dkt. No. 15
at 11; Dkt. No. 22 at 6. The parties disagreed, however, as to whether the case should be
remanded for further proceedings or for the calculation of benefits. See Dkt. No. 28 at 11. The
Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Katz's recommendation to remand the case for the
calculation of benefits. See id.
As Magistrate Judge Katz explained, Plaintiff's application for benefits has been pending
for eleven years and gone through numerous administrative and court cycles, there is persuasive
evidence supporting Plaintiff being totally disabled, and the Commissioner sought remand "for
further consideration of [the treating physician's] medical opinion"—which was the precise reason
for the previous remands. Dkt. No. 22 at 6; see Dkt. No. 28 at 11-28. Because the Court finds no
clear error in Magistrate Judge Katz's analysis or conclusion, remand solely for the calculation of
Case 3:25-cv-00411-MAD-MJK Document 29 Filed 05/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
benefits is appropriate. See Clinton George K. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:25-CV-03858, 2026
WL 1020725, *6 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2026) ("Plaintiff's application has been pending for more
than six years, and this matter has already been remanded once. . . . '[C]ourts in this Circuit have
determined that, where one or more ALJs in a case have repeatedly erred in applying the treating
physician rule, remand for further development of the record is unwarranted'") (collecting cases).
Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the Report-Recommendation, the entire record in
this matter, and the applicable law, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Katz's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 28) is
ADOPTED in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15) is
GRANTED; and the Court further
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 22) is
DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED
SOLELY FOR THE CALCULATION OF BENEFITS; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and close
this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 15, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 3:25-cv-00411-MAD-MJK Document 29 Filed 05/15/26 Page 3 of 3