Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff:	Miosotis Rivera
Defendant:	Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number:	1:2017cv00991
Filed:	February 10, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	New York
Presiding Judge:	Jesse M. Furman
Presiding Judge:	Barbara C. Moses
Nature of Suit:	Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
September 11, 2018	Filing 20 OPINION AND ORDER re: 17 CROSS MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security, 15 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Miosotis Rivera. For the foregoing reasons, Rivera's motion is granted, the Commissioner's cross-motion is denied, and this case is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the ALJ should: 1. Provide a comprehensive analysis of the weight afforded to treating psyc hiatrist Dr. Pachas's opinions based on the factors set forth in the applicable regulations; 2. Consider and weigh treating psychiatrist Dr. Taveras's findings; and 3. Consider, based on his findings after proper application of the treatin g physician rule, whether Rivera's nonexertional limitations are significant enough to require consultation with a vocational expert. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 9/11/2018) (ne) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Date Filed

Document Text

September 11, 2018

Filing 20 OPINION AND ORDER re: 17 CROSS MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Commissioner of Social Security, 15 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Miosotis Rivera. For the foregoing reasons, Rivera's motion is granted, the Commissioner's cross-motion is denied, and this case is remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the ALJ should: 1. Provide a comprehensive analysis of the weight afforded to treating psyc hiatrist Dr. Pachas's opinions based on the factors set forth in the applicable regulations; 2. Consider and weigh treating psychiatrist Dr. Taveras's findings; and 3. Consider, based on his findings after proper application of the treatin g physician rule, whether Rivera's nonexertional limitations are significant enough to require consultation with a vocational expert. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James L. Cott on 9/11/2018) (ne) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Miosotis Rivera
Represented By:	Daniel Berger
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?