UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________________

DEASHON T.,

Plaintiff, vs. 8:23-CV-1541 (MAD/MJK)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. ____________________________________________

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

DEASHON T. Latham, New York Pro se Plaintiff

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION KRISTINA D. COHN, ESQ. Office of General Counsel 6401 Security Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21235 Attorney for Defendant

Mae A. D'Agostino, U.S. District Judge:

ORDER Pro se Plaintiff, Deashon T., commenced this action pursuant to

(g) seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the "Commissioner") denying his applications for Supplemental Security Income and Child's Insurance Benefits. See Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff filed three letters seeking to add documents to the administrative record. See Dkt. Nos. 20, 24, 29. The Commissioner responded to Plaintiff's letters, arguing that the record was fully developed. See Dkt. Nos. 22, 27. In a Report-Recommendation dated May 31, 2024, Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz interpreted Plaintiff's filings as a request to remand the Commissioner's decision pursuant to sentence six of

(g) for consideration of new and material evidence that was not part of the original administrative record. See Dkt. No. 31. Magistrate Judge Katz recommended denying Plaintiff's request for remand. Plaintiff filed sixty- page objections to the Report-Recommendation. See Dkt. No. 33. On September 3, 2024, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Katz's Report-Recommendation and permitted the parties time to file a brief challenging the substantive merits of the ALJ's decision. See Dkt. No. 35. Plaintiff filed five letters asking for an extension of time to file his brief and to submit additional documents. See Dkt. Nos. 36, 38, 42, 44, 46. Plaintiff also filed an appeal to the Second Circuit. See Dkt. No. 41.1 Magistrate Judge Katz granted Plaintiff's first two extension

requests and denied his motion to submit additional document to the administrative record. See Dkt. Nos. 37, 43, 47. Plaintiff filed a 188-page brief on November 22, 2024. See Dkt. No. 48. He attached hundreds of pages of records to his brief. See

Plaintiff lists five primary issues: (1) Magistrate Judge Katz erred in denying his request to appoint counsel; (2) the ALJ erred in failing to consider additional evidence from Plaintiff's childhood; (3) the administrative record is incomplete; (4) the ALJ failed to fully develop the record; and (5) the ALJ erred in her analysis of Plaintiff's claims. See

; see also Dkt. No. 48-1 at 1-3 (summarizing the twenty-four specific issues Plaintiff has with the Court and the ALJ's decisions). In a sentence labeled "Relief," Plaintiff states that he "do[es] not want [his] adult case penalized or reviewed or come

under question if [his] childhood case is remanded; [he] would like to keep [his] adult forward- going SSI." Dkt. No. 48 at 188.

1 The Court concluded that Plaintiff's appeal did not divest this Court of jurisdiction because the Court's September 3, 2024, Order was not a final and appealable decision. See Dkt. No. 40. On December 19, 2024, the Commissioner filed a motion to remand the case to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. See Dkt. No. 51. The Commissioner contends that the ALJ erred in consideration of a medical opinion from consultative examiner Dennis Noia, Ph.D. See

. The Commissioner also agrees that "[t]he ALJ [] did not fully develop the record."

Plaintiff filed a letter in response on February 8, 2025, stating that the Social Security Administration contacted him on February 3, 2025, about a hearing that was to be held two days later, on February 5, 2025. See Dkt. No. 52 at 1. Plaintiff argues that he did not receive proper notice of the hearing. See

He also asks that the Court

"use [its] discretion to decide whether [he] can simply be awarded [his] childhood benefits . . . ."

. Plaintiff requests in the alternative, that if the Court remands his case, it enters an "order explicitly stating that [his] current adult Social Security benefits cannot be reviewed or taken away from [him]."

"'Where there are gaps in the administrative record or the ALJ has applied an improper legal standard, we have, on numerous occasions, remanded to the [Commissioner] for further development of the evidence.'" Searcy v. Astrue, No. 6:10-CV-1294,

, *2 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2012) (quoting Pratts v. Chater,

(2d Cir. 1996)) (additional quotation and quotation marks omitted). "In contrast, where there is 'no apparent basis to conclude that a more complete record might support the Commissioner's decision,' the Court may

'simply remand for a calculation of benefits.'"

(quoting Rosa v. Callahan,

(2d Cir. 1999)). Based on a review of both parties' filings, it appears that a more complete record might impact the Commissioner's decision such that remand for further proceedings and development of the record is appropriate. A remand for the calculation of benefits is not currently warranted because remand for evidentiary proceedings serves a purpose. See Demars v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,

, 263 (2d Cir. 2021). Remand for further proceedings would allow the ALJ to obtain additional mental health treatment records discussed by both parties. See Dkt. No. 51-1 at 8; Dkt. No. 48 at 184-85. Remand would also provide the ALJ with the opportunity to appropriately articulate consideration of the medical opinions in the record as required by

.1520c. See Dkt. No. 51-1 at 7; Dkt. No. 48 at 58. As the Commissioner states, there is evidence in the record which contradicts a finding of disability because the records demonstrate that Plaintiff was cooperative and stable, and had fair

judgment and insight, and adequate impulse control. See Dkt. No. 51-1 at 9; see also Dkt. No. 16 at 483-84. 491-92. The administrative record, as it presently exists, does not present the "extraordinary" circumstances under which a remand solely for the calculation of benefits is warranted. Brian D. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:21-CV-1368.

, *10 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2023) (quoting Lori H. v. Kijakazi, No. 3:20-CV-1303,

, *3 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2022)). As to Plaintiff's statement that he does not want this case to penalize his separate case for adult benefits, the claims could potentially be adjudicated, together. See DI 25201.010 If You Attain Age 18 After You File Your Disability Application But Before We Make A Determination or Decision, Program Operations Manual System, Social Security Administration,

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0425201010 (eff. July, 31, 2023). The Court is not aware of the status of Plaintiff's adult benefits case. However, the claims require application of different standards. See

There is also no basis to believe that Plaintiff's adult case will be negatively impacted by this Court's remand on his application for Child's Insurance Benefits.’ Accordingly, after carefully reviewing the entire record in this matter, the parties’ submissions, and the applicable law, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Commissioner's motion for remand for further proceedings (Dkt. No. 51) is GRANTED; and the Court further ORDERS that the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Order; 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 ISSO ORDERED. Dated: February 11, 2025 Jl lg ste Albany, New York uae x. = LL. we = U.S. District Judge

> Because the Court is remanding this case, it need not analyze Plaintiff's argument that the Court erroneously denied him counsel. > This decision is not at odds with the previous ruling of the Court denying Plaintiff's request for remand pursuant to sentence six of

(g), because the Commissioner has moved for remand pursuant to sentence four

(g). See Dkt. No. 51-1 at 4.