Galvin v. Colvin

Filing 11

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES (ORDER). SS Plaintiffs Brief due by 9/16/2013. SS Defendants Brief due by 10/16/2013. SS Plaintiffs Reply Brief due by 10/31/2013. By Judge John L. Kane on 8/6/13. (mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01247-AP
Yvonne R. Galvin,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES

1.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES
For Plaintiff:
Thomas A. Feldman, Esq.
1120 Lincoln St., Ste. 1306
Denver, CO 80203
[phone]
[e-mail]
For Defendant:

John F. Walsh
United States Attorney

Michael A. Thomas
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel, Region VIII
1961 Stout St., Ste. 4169
Denver, CO 80294-4003
[phone]
[e-mail]

J. Benedict García
Assistant United States Attorney

2.

STATEMENT OF LEGAL BASIS FOR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3).

-1-

3.

DATES OF FILING OF RELEVANT PLEADINGS
A.
B.

Date Complaint Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office: May 14, 2013

C.
4.

Date Complaint Was Filed: May 10, 2013

Date Answer and Administrative Record Were Filed: July 15, 2013

STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD

Plaintiff states: Plaintiff claims the administrative record is not complete, as it does not include the
psychological evaluation of Robert Pelc, Ph.D. While Dr. Pelc’s evaluation was prepared after the
ALJ’s decision, that report (and the two forms accompanying it) are based on the doctor’s review
of the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Dr. Pelc in his report made conclusions about the Plaintiff’s
mental functioning during the period of time prior to the ALJ’s decision. This Court can review the
Appeals Council’s decision as to whether evidence submitted to it is “new,” “material” and “relates
to the period on or before” the ALJ’s decision, per 20 C.F.R. § 416.1470(b). That review can only
be meaningful if contested evidence such as Dr. Pelc’s evaluation is part of the record.
Defendant states: To the best of Defendant’s knowledge, the certified administrative record is
complete.
5.

STATEMENT REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Plaintiff states: Other than Dr. Pelc’s evaluation and the signed forms accompanying that
evaluation, Plaintiff does not anticipate submitting additional evidence.
Defendant states: Defendant does not anticipate submitting additional evidence.
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 any unusual claims or
defenses.
7.

OTHER MATTERS

The parties have no other matters to bring to the attention of the court.
8.

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Due to Defendant’s counsel’s caseload and schedule, as well as Plaintiff’s counsel’s schedule, the
parties request a briefing schedule outside the standard time frame.
A.

Plaintiff's Opening Brief Due: September 16, 2013

B.

Defendant’s Response Brief Due: October 16, 2013
-2-

C.
9.

Plaintiff’s Reply Brief (If Any) Due: October 31, 2013

STATEMENTS REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

A.
Plaintiff's Statement: Plaintiff requests oral argument. Oral argument would
provide a useful opportunity to analyze an important legal issue in this case, namely, the
standard for evaluating medical opinions and for the Appeals Council to evaluate new
evidence.
B.
10.

Defendant's Statement: Defendant does not request oral argument.

CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Indicate below the parties' consent choice.
A.

B.

11.

(

)

(X)

All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a
United States Magistrate Judge.
All parties have not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a
United States Magistrate Judge.

AMENDMENTS TO JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

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.
The parties agree that the Joint Case Management Plan may be altered or amended only
upon a showing of good cause.
DATED this 6th day of August, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/John L. Kane

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

-3-

APPROVED:

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/Thomas A. Feldman

/s/Michael A. Thomas

Thomas A. Feldman, Esq.
1120 Lincoln St., Ste. 1306
Denver, CO 80203
[phone]
[e-mail]

By:
Michael A. Thomas
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel, Region VIII
1961 Stout St., Ste. 4169
Denver, CO 80294-4003
[phone]
[e-mail]

Attorney for Plaintiff

Attorneys for Defendant

-4-