UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

BRIAN O.1,

Plaintiff,

No. 3:22-cv-00975 (VAB) v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Defendant.

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION TO REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER AND MOTION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER

For the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Robert A. Richardson’s Recommended Ruling, ECF No. 25, Plaintiff’s motion to reverse is GRANTED and Defendant’s motion to affirm is DENIED. The decision of the Commissioner is VACATED and REMANDED for rehearing and further proceedings in accordance with this Ruling and Order. As to Defendant’s objection to the Recommended Ruling, one principally, if not wholly, based on an argument that Judge Richardson relied on an outdated standard, the Court disagrees. See, e.g., Victoria M. v. Kijakazi, No. 3:21-cv-1575 (VAB),

, at *11 (D. Conn. Mar. 24, 2023) (“[E]ven though a treating physician’s opinion is no longer entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ may be required to request a functional assessment from a treating source ‘when no such assessment exists in the record or when any such assessments are insufficient.’”) (quoting Jackson v. Kijakazi,

, 577 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)); Almonte v. Comm’r of

1 In light of the privacy concerns outlined in the District of Connecticut’s Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures, for purposes of this Ruling and Order, the Plaintiff will be identified only by his first name and last initial. See United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Electronic Filing Policies and Procedures 7–8 (Jan. 9, 2023). Soc. Sec., No. 21-cv-3091 (PKC),

, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2022) (“As part of [the] obligation to develop the record, an ALJ must attempt to obtain medical opinions—not just medical records—from a claimant’s treating physicians. . . . That obligation continues to exist even in cases involving claims filed after March 27, 2017, to which the ‘treating physician

rule’ no longer applies.”) (citing Prieto v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-CV-3941 (RWL),

, at *10–11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2021)); Russ v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

, 163 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (“Although the treating physician rule has been abolished, the principle espoused by Tankisi still applies: whether remand is required because of failure to obtain an opinion from the claimant’s treating physician depends on whether the ALJ could have reached an informed decision based on substantial evidence without it.”); see also Victoria M.,

, at *9 (noting that “[c]ourts have also held that ALJs erred by failing to develop the record when they had obtained RFC assessments but gave ‘little weight’ to each of them, leaving the ALJ with no persuasive medical opinions upon which to base the RFC.”) (citing Trombley v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-cv-00131 (MAT),

, at *4 (W.D.N.Y.

Mar. 14, 2019)). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case. SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 28th day of September, 2023. /s/ Victor A. Bolden Victor A. Bolden United States District Judge