Garver v. Astrue

Filing 14

Joint Case Management Plan For Social Security Cases (ORDER) SS Plaintiffs Brief due by 2/1/2010. SS Defendants Brief due by 3/3/2010. SS Plaintiffs Reply Brief due by 3/18/2010. By Judge John L. Kane on 12/18/2009. (sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-02259-AP JEFFREY P. GARVER, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES

1.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES For Plaintiff: Gordon W. Williams 143 Union Boulevard, Suite 720 Lakewood, CO 80228 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] [e-mail] For Defendant: DAVID M. GAOUETTE United States Attorney KEVIN TRASKOS Assistant U.S. Attorney Deputy Chief, Civil Division United States Attorney's Office District of Colorado [e-mail] STEPHANIE LYNN F. KILEY Special Assistant U. S. Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 1961 Stout Street, Suite 1001A Denver, CO 80294 Telephone: [phone] [e-mail]

2.

STATEMENT OF LEGAL BASIS FOR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION The Court has jurisdiction based on section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

3.

DATES OF FILING OF RELEVANT PLEADINGS A. B. C. Date Complaint Was Filed: September 22, 2009.

Date Complaint Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office: October 1, 2009. Date Answer and Administrative Record Were Filed: December 1, 2009.

4.

STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD Plaintiff states: The record contains the decision of the Appeals Council not to reopen a prior denial dated July 31, 2009, based upon new evidence submitted. The record does not contain the motion to reopen or the evidence that was submitted. Plaintiff seeks to have this material included as part of the record. Defendant states: Plaintiff's motion and additional evidence is not relevant to this proceeding. To the best of his knowledge, the administrative record is complete.

5.

STATEMENT REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE Plaintiff states: Plaintiff intends to file a motion, under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to remand the case to the Commissioner to consider new and material evidence. The new and material evidence is the opinion of an examining ophthalmologist that the claimant, who is blind in one eye and has visual acuity problems in the other eye, has no depth perception and will have problems with visual accommodation and near acuity. Plaintiff believes that the question of whether or not this evidence is new and material as that term is used in section 405(g) is intertwined with the facts and issues on appeal in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a ruling, as part of the Joint Case Management Plan, that the argument and legal authority in support of that motion can be incorporated into the briefs on the merits of this appeal and that the time limits under local rule 7.1 be modified to be the same as those for the briefing on the merits of the case. Defendant states: Defendant reserves the right to respond to any motion Plaintiff files and does not object to Plaintiff including the motion or argument to remand in the same document as the case in chief.

2

6.

STATEMENT REGARDING WHETHER THIS CASE RAISES UNUSUAL CLAIMS OR DEFENSES The parties, to the best of their knowledge, do not believe this case raises unusual claims or defenses.

7.

OTHER MATTERS Plaintiff, if he files a motion pursuant to rule 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for remand under sentence 6 of that section for the commission to consider new and material evidence, rather than incorporating legal argument and authority into that motion, may incorporate such argument and authority into Plaintiff's opening brief within the time periods set forth in Section 8 above, and that the Responses and Reply to the motion may, likewise be incorporated into the brief on the appeal and the time periods for such Response and Reply shall be modified to those set forth in Section 8 above.

8.

BRIEFING SCHEDULE A. B. C. Plaintiffs Opening Brief Due: Defendant's Response Brief Due: Plaintiffs Reply Brief (If Any) Due: February 1, 2010. March 3, 2010. March 18, 2010.

9.

STATEMENTS REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT A. B. Plaintiff's Statement: Plaintiff does not request oral argument. Defendant's Statement: Defendant does not request oral argument

10.

CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE All parties have not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.

11.

OTHER MATTERS THE PARTIES FILING MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME OR CONTINUANCES MUST COMPLY WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(C) BY SUBMITTING PROOF THAT A COPY OF THE MOTION HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE MOVING ATTORNEY'S CLIENT, ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, AND ALL PRO SE PARTIES.

12.

AMENDMENTS TO JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN 3

The parties agree that the Joint Case Management Plan may be altered or amended only upon a showing of good cause. DATED this 18th day of December, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/John L. Kane U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE APPROVED:

s/Gordon W. Williams Gordon W. Williams 143 Union Boulevard, Suite 720 Lakewood, CO 80228 Telephone [phone] Fax [phone] [e-mail]

DAVID M. GAOUETTE United States Attorney KEVIN TRASKOS Assistant U.S. Attorney Deputy Chief, Civil Division United States Attorney's Office District of Colorado [e-mail]

s/Stephanie Lynn F. Kiley STEPHANIE LYNN F. KILEY Special Assistant U. S. Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 1961 Stout Street, Suite 1001A Denver, CO 80294 Telephone: [phone] [e-mail]

4