Self v. Commissioner, Social Security

Filing 18

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES (ORDER). SS Plaintiffs Brief due by 2/3/2014. SS Defendants Brief due by 3/13/2014. SS Plaintiffs Reply Brief due by 3/31/2014. By Judge John L. Kane on 12/18/2013. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-2134-AP
DONITA L. SELF,
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:
Donita L. Self (pro se)
2862 W. Long Dr. Unit D
Littleton, CO 80120
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

For Defendant:
John F. Walsh
United States Attorney
James L. Burgess
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration-Region VIII
1969 Stout Street, Suite 4169
Denver, CO 80294-4003
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
J. Benedict García
Assistant United States Attorney
1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: [phone]
Email: [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.

Date Complaint Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office: September 6, 2013

C.
4.

Date Complaint Was Filed: August 9, 2013

Date Answer and Administrative Record Were Filed: December 3, 2013

STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD
A.

B.

5.

Plaintiff’s Statement: “I do not feel that the record is adequate only because of
the lack of understanding the medical field has today on the planet about
Chiari II/Occult tethered cord. statements such as ‘I don’t think....’ that
countless ignorant doctors wrote in my record and which the ALJ has based
his decision do actually prove THE DOCTORS IGNORANCE HOWEVER, THE
ALJ was unable to ascertain those facts from the record THEREFOR MAKING
THEM INADEQUATE.”
Defendant’s Statement: To the best of the Commissioner’s knowledge, the
administrative record is complete and accurate.

STATEMENT REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
A.

Plaintiff’s Statement: “Additional evidence would be to subpoena Kaiser
Admin and Dr. Saul Schwarz if necessary to show how I was stuck in a low
income based insurance policy and was actively pursuing an appeal to be allowed
to be seen by a doctor at The Chiari Institute, or any other provider with actual
experience in her condition, Chiari II/Occult Tethered Cord, a rare neurological
condition. The additional evidence would be to prove that the record
becomes adequate upon the understanding of the ignorance surrounding Chiari II
occult tethered cord and what the ALJ failed to do and why she is asking them to
please review his decision.”

B.

Defendant’s Statement: The Commissioner does not anticipate submitting
additional evidence. The Commissioner reserves the right to oppose any motions
or requests for subpoenas from Plaintiff that exceed the Court’s review authority
under 42 U.S.C. 405(g).

6.

STATEMENT REGARDING WHETHER THIS CASE RAISES UNUSUAL
CLAIMS OR DEFENSES
A.

B.

7.

Plaintiff’s Statement: “As far as ‘Unusual Claims and defense,’ my elementary
understanding limits me from fully being able to understand if in fact my case
falls under this. My take home message would be that the ALJ judge based his
decision upon a doctor’s ‘I dont think...’ AND THAT I WANT THE COURT TO
SEE IT FOR WHAT IT IS, A DOCTOR WHO HAD NO CLUE AS TO HOW
TO TREAT MY CONDITION, AND WHO IS was ALSO THE IDIOT WHO
CLAIMED IT WAS RESOLVED IN HER MEDICAL RECORDS.
(DR. SCHWARZ CLAIMED THAT AND CHIARI IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
RESOLVE). AND HOW THE ALJ JUDGE OVERLOOKED OR DISMISSED
ACTUAL RECORDS FROM DOCTORS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF CHIARI
THAT ARE WORLD RENOWN EXPERTS IN CHIARI. AND THAT THE
ALJ JUDGE ALSO WENT AGAINST WHAT HIS OWN VOCATIONAL
EXPERTS TESTIMONY IN HIS DECISION. AND AGAINST ALL OF
MS. SELF’S TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN EFFORTS TO
EDUCATE HIM ABOUT CHIARI.”
Defendant’s Statement: The Commissioner, to the best of her knowledge, does
not believe this case raises unusual claims or defenses.

OTHER MATTERS

There are no other matters anticipated. Plaintiff’s current claim does not involve any prior
judicial proceedings.
8.

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Plaintiff and counsel for the Commissioner agree to the following proposed briefing schedule:
A.

Plaintiff’s Opening Brief Due: February 3, 2014

B.

Defendant’s Response Brief Due: March 13, 2014

C.

Plaintiff’s Reply Brief (If Any) Due: March 31, 2014

The parties have agreed to extend the deadline for Defendant’s brief due to Defendant’s
counsel’s briefing schedule.

9.

STATEMENTS REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
A.
B.

10.

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

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.

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 18th day of December, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/John L. Kane
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

APPROVED:

JOHN F. WALSH
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
J. Benedict García
Assistant United States Attorney

s/ Donita L. Self
2862 W. Long Dr. Unit D
Littleton, CO 80120
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Plaintiff pro se

s/ James L. Burgess
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Assistant Regional Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration-Region VIII
1961 Stout Street, Suite 04169
Denver, CO 80294-4003
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant