Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HECTOR NIEVES,
Plaintiff,
-against-
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 24-CV-1066 (FB)
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
CHARLES WEISER
HAROLD SKOVRONSKY
Law Office of Harold Skovronsky
1810 Avenue N
Brooklyn, NY 11230
For the Defendants:
SANTANA JOHANNY
SERGEI ADEN
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Blvd.
Baltimore, MD 21235
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Plaintiff Hector Nieves (“Nieves” or “Plaintiff”) seeks review of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration's (“the Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denial of his application
for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Both
parties moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).
For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED, and the Commissioner's motion is
DENIED. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum and
Order.
Case 1:24-cv-01066-FB Document 13 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Nieves applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits on July 8, 2021, alleging
disability as of January 13, 2020. ALJ Dec., Tr. at 13.1 The date of disability onset was later
amended to May 10, 2021. Id. He premised his claim of disability on reported pain in his left
knee, right shoulder and right hand. Tr. at 62. 	An initial review denied his claim, and the
ALJ found Nieves not disabled in a decision dated March 29, 2023. Id. at 27. He requested
review of the ALJ's decision, which the Appeals Council denied on January 17, 2024. App.
Denial, Tr. at 1. Thereafter, Nieves timely commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
of the Social Security Act seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision. Compl., ECF No. 1.
I
District courts reviewing the Commissioner's determinations under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
must “conduct a plenary review of the administrative record to determine if there is substantial
evidence, considering the record as a whole, to support the Commissioner's decision and if the
correct legal standards have been applied.” Rucker v. Kijakazi, 48 F.4th 86, 90–91 (2d Cir. 2022).
They may not conduct a de novo review or substitute their judgment for that of the ALJ, see
Cage v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 692 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2012), reversing the ALJ “only if the
factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence or if the decision is based on legal
error,” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 127 (2d Cir. 2008). “Substantial evidence means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Selian
v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013).2
1 The Commissioner filed the administrative transcript of the proceedings before the Social Security Administration
at ECF No. 9. All references to ECF No. 9 are denoted as “Tr. __.”
2 Throughout this opinion, the Court omits all internal quotation marks, footnotes, and citations, and adopts all
alterations, unless otherwise indicated.
Case 1:24-cv-01066-FB Document 13 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The Commissioner employs a five-step inquiry to evaluate Social Security disability
claims. See McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146, 150 (2d Cir. 2014). At steps one and two, the ALJ
found that Nieves had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since the alleged onset date and
has the following severe impairments: a right shoulder disorder (caused by an injury in January
2020 and surgically treated in October 2020), and a right thumb impairment (injured in May
2021 and surgically treated in March 2022). Tr. at 18. The ALJ also found the following non-
severe impairments: a torn meniscus of the left knee (surgically treated in March 2020), carpal
tunnel syndrome of the right hand (surgically treated in December 2018), hypertension, and
obesity. Id.
At step three, the ALJ found that these impairments did not meet or equal the severity of
the specified impairments in the Listing of Impairments, specifically Listing § 1.18, because he
is not unable “to use at least one upper extremity to independently initiate, sustain, and complete
work-related activities involving fine and gross movement.” Id. at 19.
At step four, the ALJ found that Nieves has the residual functional capacity (“RFC”) “to
perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b), consisting of lifting or carrying no more
than twenty pounds with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to ten pounds.” Id.
Nieves’ RFC included the following limitations: “The claimant is able to sit for six hours in an
eight-hour workday and stand or walk for six hours in an eight-hour workday. The claimant can
never crawl, push, or pull with the right upper extremity, or climb ladders, ropes, or scaffolds. He
can occasionally perform hand controls, handle, finger, and reach overhead with the right upper
extremity. He cannot work with vibrating tools with the right upper extremity or work around
unprotected heights or heavy moving machinery.” Id.
Case 1:24-cv-01066-FB Document 13 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
The ALJ then found that Nieves was unable to perform any past relevant work. However,
based on the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ determined that Nieves would be capable
of performing jobs that exist in a significant number in the national economy, namely School Bus
Monitor, Usher, and Counter Clerk. Id. at 26. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Nieves was
not disabled. Id. at 27.
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by (1) making an RFC determination not supported by
substantial evidence and (2) by failing to properly apply the relevant legal standards. Pl.’s Mem.
at 7–10, ECF No. 7-1. Because the Court finds the ALJ’s decision was based on an insufficiently
developed record, remand is appropriate.
II
"Social Security proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial." Sims v. Apfel, 530
U.S. 103, 110-11, 120 S. Ct. 2080, 147 L. Ed. 2d 80 (2000). Consequently, "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 v. Astrue, 569
F.3d 108, 112 (2d Cir. 2009. As part of this duty, the ALJ must "investigate the facts and develop
the arguments both for and against granting benefits." Sims, 530 U.S. at 111. Specifically, under
the applicable regulations, the ALJ is required to develop a claimant's complete medical history.
Pratts v. Chater, 94 F.3d 34, 37 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(d)-(f)).
Whether the ALJ has satisfied this duty to develop the record is a threshold question.
“Before determining whether the Commissioner's final decision is supported by substantial
evidence under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court must first be satisfied that the ALJ provided
plaintiff with ‘a full hearing under the Secretary's regulations’ and also fully and completely
Case 1:24-cv-01066-FB Document 13 Filed 12/04/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
developed the administrative record.” Navedo v. Kijakazi, 616 F. Supp. 3d 332, 342 (S.D.N.Y.
2022) (quoting Echevarria v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 685 F.2d 751, 755 (2d Cir. 1982)).
The ALJ must develop the record even where the claimant has legal counsel. See, e.g., Perez v.
Chater, 77 F.3d 41, 47 (2d Cir. 1996). To satisfy this duty, ALJs may take such further steps as
“inter alia, re-contacting the treating physician, requesting additional records, arranging for a
consultative examination, or seeking information from others.” Ranaghan v. Comm'r of the Soc.
Sec. Admin., No. 24-cv-03538 (NCM), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163718, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22,
2025). Remand is appropriate where this duty is not discharged. See, e.g., Moran, 569 F.3d at
114-15 ("We vacate not because the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence
but because the ALJ should have developed a more comprehensive record before making his
decision.").
The record is not sufficiently developed with regard to Nieves’s knee injury, and this
Court therefore cannot determine whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial
evidence. Nieves’ torn meniscus was surgically treated in March of 2020, but he continues to
report pain to this day. Pain so bad, in fact, that in his March 3, 2022, Function Report, Nieves
reported that he cannot walk more than three or four blocks before he needs to stop and rest. Tr.
at 270. Nieves’ self-reported knee pain was also acknowledged by multiple medical experts in
the record.
First, Nieves’s physical therapist, Barnes Landis, who he was meeting with because of his
thumb injury, opined that he should “avoid prolonged standing . . . [and] walking.” The ALJ
discounted this opinion because it was not supported by “Landis’ treatment records.” However,
the treatment records are focused on the pressing issue of Nieves’s hand pain and therefore
naturally do not address his other physical issues. This does not, in and of itself, mean that
Case 1:24-cv-01066-FB Document 13 Filed 12/04/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Landis’s opinion on other physical issues is unsupported, i.e. that Landis in meeting with Nieves
did not form his opinion based on what he observed about Nieves’ physical condition.
Next, orthopedist Dr. Pamela Levine treated Nieves for his shoulder injury between
January 2020 and the time of his surgery in October 2020. Her reports make clear that Nieves
went to see her because of his shoulder pain and that they only discussed the shoulder injury
during their appointments. Tr. at 315–323. The ALJ did not discount Dr. Levine’s analysis of
Nieves’s shoulder injury, but did expressly reject her opinion that he was “100% temporarily
disabled,” writing that such opinions are “inherently neither valuable nor persuasive pursuant to
20 CFR 404.1520b.” Tr. at 23.
Subsequently, Nieves was examined by Dr. Ram Ravi on November 4, 2021. Dr. Ravi
reported that Nieves declined to “walk on his heels or toes, or squat, due to pain” in his knee, but
he also noted that both knees had “full, 90 degrees flexion and extension” and there were no
evident problems with the knees. Tr. at 364–365. Nieves reported that between his various
problems his pain level was “8/10, sharp and constant, worse with walking and lifting.” Id. at 363
(emphasis added). Dr. Ravi diagnosed Nieves with left knee pain and a “moderate limitation to
[standing] and walking.” Id. at 366. The ALJ found Dr. Ravi’s opinions to have little
persuasiveness because the report failed “to document clinical evidence of deficits in range of
motion, strength, sensation in the upper or lower extremities, . . . [and instead was] mostly
supported by the claimant's subjective reports.” Tr. at 24.
Despite the opinions of a doctor and a physical therapist who met with and examined
Nieves, the ALJ nonetheless concluded that the knee injury was non-severe because Nieves had
not sought treatment since his onset date. The ALJ supported this finding by relying on the
reports of two state medical consultants Dr. S. Ahmed, and Dr. S. Padmaraju. Dr. Ahmed
Case 1:24-cv-01066-FB Document 13 Filed 12/04/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
conducted a disability determination on December 15, 2021, Tr. at 60–74, and Dr. Padmaraju
conducted another on March 24, 2022. Id. at 75-87. Both consultants concluded that Nieves’s
medical records did not support a finding of severe impairment for his knee condition, with each
consultant writing simply, and somewhat automatically: “Severity of the allegations are not fully
supported by the objective data.” Id. at 67, 83.
A failure to seek treatment can support a finding of non-severeness, see Pulos v. Comm'r
of Soc. Sec., 346 F. Supp. 3d 352, 359-360 (W.D.N.Y. 2018), and since the abrogation of the
treating physician rule, ALJs are not required to defer to claimants’ treating physicians. See
Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. at 5853.
Nonetheless, the Court believes that something doesn’t quite add up here and that further
development of the record is warranted before a final determination can be made.
The Court is troubled by two details in the record: first, by the ALJ’s reliance on Nieves’s
failure to seek treatment in concluding that his knee condition is non-severe, and second, by the
ALJs failure to ask Nieves any questions about his knee during his oral hearing. While the ALJ
was free to give more weight to the conclusions of the state consultants, the record nonetheless
contains significant evidence that Nieves struggles with standing and walking. Nieves’s failure to
seek treatment may indeed indicate that his knee condition is not severe, but it may also be
explained more simply by the fact that he had two other, more severe injuries in recent years and
that his treatment has focused on remedying (or moderating) the pain caused by the more
pressing issues he has with his hand and shoulder. Furthermore, he has not worked in years and
therefore does not need to walk or stand very often. Indeed, his Function Reports indicate that
since he stopped working, he now spends almost all day sitting and watching TV.
Case 1:24-cv-01066-FB Document 13 Filed 12/04/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Because of the ALJ’s failure to question Nieves about his knee, or to seek further
information from Nieves’ treating physicians about the knee injury, the record is relatively
undeveloped as to this issue. The Court cannot determine whether the ALJ’s reasoning is
supported by substantial evidence because of this lacuna in the record. See Berry v. Schweiker,
675 F.2d 464, 469 (2d Cir. 1982) (endorsing remand where court is “unable to fathom the ALJ's
rationale in relation to evidence in the record.”). On remand, the ALJ shall investigate Nieves’s
knee condition so as to better determine whether he is truly capable of standing and walking for
“six hours in an eight hour work day.” Tr. at 19; see Berry, 675 F.2d at 469 (remanding for
“further findings or clearer explanation for the decision.”).
Conclusion
The Commissioner’s motion is DENIED and Nieves’ motion is GRANTED. The case is
remanded to the Commissioner to further develop the record as to Nieves’ knee injury.
SO ORDERD
_/S/ Frederic Block________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
December 4, 2025
Case 1:24-cv-01066-FB Document 13 Filed 12/04/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>