Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401 et seq. The court concluded that the failure explicitly to engage in a function-by-function assessment of plaintiff's limitations and restrictions as a part of her residual function capacity (RFC) did not constitute a per se error requiring remand. The court concluded that remand was not required where the ALJ's Step Four analysis of plaintiff's limitations and restrictions provided an adequate basis for meaningful judicial review, the ALJ's determination applied the correct legal standards, and the determination was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Cichocki v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a due-process complaint against the DOE seeking tuition reimbursement after plaintiffs enrolled their autistic child in a private school because the DOE failed to provide the child with a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The court affirmed the state review officer's determination that the hearing record did not support the impartial hearing officer's determination that the lack of a functional behavior assessment (FBA) rose to the level of denying the child a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) where the individualized education program (IEP) addressed behavioral needs. Further, the IEP's failure to include parental counseling did not deny the child a FAPE; the SRO did not rely upon impermissible retrospection and the court deferred to her analysis; and the court found plaintiffs' remaining arguments to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. View "M.W. v. New York City Dep't of Educ." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a recipient of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, appealed from the district court's judgment sua sponte dismissing his amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff sought an Order to Show Cause, a temporary restraining order, and a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from levying against his SSI benefits to enforce a child support order. At issue was whether 42 U.S.C. 659(a) authorized levy against SSI benefits provided under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 301 et seq., to satisfy the benefits recipient's child support obligations. The court concluded that SSI benefits were not based upon remuneration for employment within the meaning of section 659(a); section 659(a) did not preclude plaintiff's claims; and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the exception to federal jurisdiction for divorce matters did not preclude the district court from exercising jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment to the extent the district court dismissed plaintiff's claims against the agency defendants and remanded for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the portion of the judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against Bank of America because his complaint had not alleged facts establishing that the bank was a state actor for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983. View "Sykes v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

The County appealed from a judgment of the district court finding that the County was in violation of its duty to promote source-of-income legislation under a Stipulation and Order of Settlement and Dismissal (consent decree) entered into by the County with the United States to resolve a qui tam action initially brought by relator, ADC, under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-33, alleging the submission of false claims by the County to HUD in order to obtain federal grant monies for fair housing. As a preliminary matter, the court held that the district court had jurisdiction to review the decision of the reviewing magistrate judge under the consent decree. On the merits, the court held that the County violated the terms of the consent decree. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Westchester County, New York" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed from the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner's denial of his application for disability benefits. The court held that the ALJ erred in her treatment of plaintiff's claim that he suffered from fibromyalgia by failing to accord the proper weight to the opinion of plaintiff's treating physician, by misconstruing the record, and by failing to evaluate the claim in light of medically accepted diagnostic criteria. The court also held that the ALJ's determination that plaintiff could perform light work was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the ALJ further erred by not determining whether plaintiff's reaching limitation was non-eligible and would therefore require the testimony of a vocational expert. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Selian v. Astrue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the district court affirming the Social Security Administration's (SSA) denial of her application for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits on the basis of her alleged intellectual disability. The court held that evidence of a petitioner's cognitive limitations as an adult established a rebuttable presumption that those limitations arose before petitioner turned 22, as was required by SSA regulations. The court further held that a petitioner must make separate showings of deficits in cognitive and adaptive functioning in order to be considered intellectually disabled under SSA regulations. Because the agency's finding that petitioner did not suffer from qualifying deficits in adaptive functioning was supported by substantial evidence, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Talavera v. Commissioner of Social Security" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, through his wife and attorney-in-fact, filed an application for Medicaid benefits with the Connecticut Department of Social Services to cover the cost of his nursing home care. At issue was whether a non-assignable annuity contract that provided the spouse of an institutionalized person with monthly payments counted as an excess resource that must be spent down before the institutionalized person could receive Medicaid benefits under the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA), 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5. The court held that the payment stream for non-assignable annuity was not a resource for purposes of determining Medicaid eligibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. View "Lopes v. Dept. of Social Services" on Justia Law

Cage, born in 1960, has an extensive medical history. She offered evidence of: bipolar disorder, depression, suicidal ideation, dizziness, blackouts, memory loss and chest pain. She has not worked since November 2003. Before then, she had worked as a retail cashier, hotel maid and home healthcare aide. Cage also has a long history of drug and alcohol abuse. Her ongoing medical care has included treatment for drug addiction and alcoholism and her other conditions. An Administrative Law Judge of the Social Security Administration denied Cage’s application for Supplemental Security Income benefits, finding that although Cage met certain requirements for being “disabled” under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 301, she was ineligible for SSI because drug addiction or alcoholism was a contributing factor material to that determination. The district court affirmed. The Second Circuit affirmed. The ALJ properly imposed upon Cage the burden of proving that she would be disabled in the absence of drug addiction and alcoholism and the record supported the ALJ’s finding that she would not be disabled absent drug addiction and alcoholism. View "Cage v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec." on Justia Law

Applicants for and recipients of Medicaid home health Services claimed that the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the New York State Department of Health, violated their statutory right, enforceable under 42 U.S.C.1983, to an opportunity for Medicaid fair hearings. They claimed that this right, as construed by federal regulation, entitles them to “final administrative action” within 90 days of their fair hearing requests. The district court declared that “final administrative action” includes the holding of Medicaid fair hearings, the issuance of fair hearing decisions, and the implementation of any relief ordered in those decisions and permanently enjoined the state agencies to ensure that “final administrative action” implemented within 90 days of fair hearing requests. The Second Circuit affirmed in part, holding that the plaintiffs have a right to a Medicaid hearing and decision ordinarily within 90 days of their fair hearing requests, and that such right is enforceable under section 1983. The permanent injunction was, however, overbroad because “final administrative action” refers not to the implementation of relief ordered in fair hearing decisions, but to the holding of fair hearings and to the issuance of fair hearing decisions. View "Shakhnes v. Eggleston" on Justia Law

Brault applied for Disability Insurance Benefits in 2007, claiming that he became disabled in 2006 because of nerve damage in his left arm and a cervical spine injury he sustained in a motor-vehicle accident. After his application was denied initially and on reconsideration, he requested an administrative hearing. Brault’s counsel asserted a Daubert-like objection to the vocational expert’s testimony, contending it was unreliable. The ALJ never directly responded to the objections, but issued a ruling which relied on the VE’s testimony, agreed that positions existed in the eight DOT positions the VE had identified at the numbers the VE had given, and denied Brault’s application for benefits. The district court affirmed the denial. The Second Circuit affirmed, finding that the denial was supported by substantial evidence. The administrative law judge was not required to state expressly his reasons for accepting a vocational expert’s challenged testimony.View "Brault v. Soc. Sec. Admin." on Justia Law