Darwin v. Social Security Administration

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/30/15: Defendant shall file a Reply addressing plaintiff's newly raised issue regarding Dr. Chen particularly the assertion that the Commissioner may be reviewing the underlying decision here, and/or considering providing some form of relief to plaintiff1 no later than May 21, 2015, at which time the matter will be taken under submission. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN DARWIN, IV,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-0740 AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

19

(“Commissioner”), denying his application for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II

20

of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-34, and for Supplemental Security

21

Income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1383f.

22

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment and fully briefed the matter.

23

See ECF Nos. 17, 21 & 22. However, plaintiff’s opposition to the Commissioner’s cross-motion

24

for summary judgment raises, for the first time, a challenge to the Commissioner’s reliance on Dr.

25

Frank Chen, a consultative examiner. See ECF No. 22. Plaintiff claims that Dr. Chen was

26

removed from a state panel of acceptable consultative examiners, for malfeasance related to his

27

work as a consultative examiner. Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff further claims that the Commissioner may

28

be “reviewing all adverse decisions involving examinations by Dr. Frank Chen.” Id. at 2.
1

1

Plaintiff further indicates that the Commissioner may be considering some form of relief “to those

2

persons whose claims were denied on the strength (or absence thereof) of his [Dr. Chen’s]

3

medical opinions.” Id.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant shall file a Reply addressing

5

plaintiff’s newly raised issue regarding Dr. Chen – particularly the assertion that the

6

Commissioner may be reviewing the underlying decision here, and/or considering providing

7

some form of relief to plaintiff1 – no later than May 21, 2015, at which time the matter will be

8

taken under submission.

9

DATED: April 30, 2015

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

The court is aware of Hart v. Colvin, 3:15-cv-00623 JST (N.D. Cal., filed Feb. 2, 2015), a
purported class action lawsuit addressing this issue. The court is aware that the Commissioner
has moved to dismiss that lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. There is no need for the
Commissioner to brief the court on that case, unless the Commissioner believes that such briefing
is warranted.

28
2