Estate of Jayne Bonham v. Burwell

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/26/2016 ORDERING no later than 30 days from the date of this order, the parties shall; (A) Complete and return the "Consent to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge" or "Request for Reassignment to a U.S. District Judge" served on them with the Scheduling Order. See ECF No. 4-2.; (B) file a Joint Status Report setting forth proposed dates for commencing and completing briefing in this matter, advising the court whether ora l argument is requested or not, and advising the court of any other relevant matter; if the parties fail to agree on a Joint Status Report, they shall file separate Status Reports; if any party believes that a Status Conference would be helpful in managing this case, that party may request it in the Status Report. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Estate of JAYNE BONHAM,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-2465 JAM AC

v.

ORDER

SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL,
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff in this case appeals a May 23, 2014 decision of the Medicare Appeals Council,

19
20

which is the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Complaint (ECF

21

No. 2) at 1; Complaint Exhibit C (ECF No. 2-3) (decision).1 That decision reversed the

22

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), who had issued a March 21, 2012 decision that was “fully

23

favorable” to plaintiff. Complaint ¶ 6. Judicial review in the district court is provided by 42

24

U.S.C. §§ 1395w-22(g)(5). That review is governed by the standard provided by 42 U.S.C.

25

§ 405(g). 42 U.S.C. § 1395w-22(g)(5); Int’l Rehab. Scis. Inc. v. Sebelius, 688 F.3d 994, 1000

26

(9th Cir. 2012).

27
28

1

See Int’l Rehab. Scis. Inc. v. Sebelius, 688 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[t]he Medicare
Appeals Council’s decision is the agency’s final decision”) (citing 42 C.F.R. § 405.1130).
1

1

The Secretary’s Answer was filed on May 6, 2016. ECF No. 11. The Administrative

2

Record (“AR”), housed on compact discs, was lodged on May 6, 2015 and August 17, 2015, with

3

the Clerk of the Court. See ECF Nos. 12, 13.

4

According to the October 21, 2014 Scheduling Order, briefing on this case was to

5

commence 45 days after plaintiff was served with the Administrative Record. ECF No. 4. In

6

addition, the parties were ordered to “complete and return the enclosed Consent to Assignment or

7

Request for Reassignment” within 90 days of the Scheduling Order. ECF No. 4-1, 4-2.

8

However, the parties have undertaken no further action in this case. The matter has now been

9

assigned to a district judge and referred to the undersigned. ECF No. 14.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. No later than 30 days from the date of this order, the parties shall:

12

a. Complete and return the “Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate

13

Judge” or “Request for Reassignment To a United States District Judge” served on them with the

14

Scheduling Order. See ECF No. 4-2.

15

b. File a Joint Status Report setting forth proposed dates for commencing and

16

completing briefing in this matter, advising the court whether oral argument is requested or not,

17

and advising the court of any other relevant matter. If the parties fail to agree on a Joint Status

18

Report, they shall file separate Status Reports.

19

2. If any party believes that a Status Conference would be helpful in managing this case,

20

that party may request it in the Status Report.

21

DATED: February 26, 2016

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2