Nelms v. Colvin

Filing 15

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES (ORDER), SS Plaintiffs Brief due by 5/9/2014. SS Defendants Brief due by 6/9/2014. SS Plaintiffs Reply Brief due by 6/24/2014. By Judge John L. Kane on 2/25/2014. (trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-02916-AP
DOMINIC T. NELMS,
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:
Gordon W. Williams
143 Union Boulevard, Suite 270
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Tel: [phone]
[e-mail]
For Defendant:
Stephanie Lynn F. Kiley
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration
1961 Stout Street, Suite 4169
Denver, Colorado 80294-4003
[phone]
[e-mail]

John F. Walsh
United States Attorney
J.B. García
Assistant United States Attorney
District of Colorado

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).

-1-

3. DATES OF FILING OF RELEVANT PLEADINGS
A.
B.
C.
4.

Date Complaint Was Filed: October 25, 2013
Date Complaint Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office: November 14, 2013
Date Answer and Administrative Record Were Filed: February 7, 2014

STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD

The parties, to the best of their knowledge, state that the administrative record is complete and
accurate (except for Plaintiff’s issues as to rejected evidence addressed in section 5 below.)
5.

STATEMENT REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

Plaintiff states:
The attorney for the Plaintiff at the Appeals Council presented evidence that he believed was
new and material including a medical source opinion from the Plaintiff’s treating doctor. This
evidence was rejected by the Appeals Council as not being time relevant and is not included in
the administrative record. Plaintiff’s counsel will argue that the Appeals Council’s action
rejecting this evidence was incorrect and that the evidence was new and material and should
have been considered. This rejected evidence is still contained in the Social Security electronic
record. While Plaintiff believes the rejected evidence should have been included in the transcript
of the record so the court could consider this question, in order to avoid having to have the court
rule on this procedural issue, the parties have agreed that counsel for Plaintiff may attach
copies of the rejected evidence to the opening brief and may argue, as to those documents,
whether they should have been considered and to the extent they should have been considered
may raise any other issues relevant to those documents. Defendant has been provided with a
copy of those documents and does not dispute that those are the documents that were
presented to and rejected by the Appeals Council.
Additionally Plaintiff has numerous additional medical records, including records attached to the
complaint, that Plaintiff believes are new and material and that the case should be remanded for
consideration of this evidence pursuant to sentence 6 of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). The parties have
agreed that Plaintiff, at her option, may either attach those documents to the opening brief and
argue for remand or in that alternative may file a separate motion and argument for remand for
consideration of new and material evidence
Defendant states:
Pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court’s review is
limited to the certified administrative transcript that was filed with Defendant’s answer.
Defendant reserves the right to respond to the issues Plaintiff raises regarding rejected
evidence and a request for remand to consider alleged new and material evidence.

-2-

6. STATEMENT REGARDING WHETHER THIS CASE RAISES UNUSUAL CLAIMS OR
DEFENSES
The parties, to the best of their knowledge, do not believe the case raises unusual claims or
defenses.
7. OTHER MATTERS
The parties have no other matters (other than the procedures referred to in section 5) to bring to
the attention of the Court.
The parties state that this case is not on appeal from a decision issued on remand from this
Court.
8. BRIEFING SCHEDULE
The parties request the following briefing schedule, outside of the 60 day briefing schedule, due
to Defendant’s workload. OK/JLK – no extensions.
A.
B.
C.

Plaintiff's Opening Brief Due: May 9, 2014
Defendant’s Response Brief Due: June 9, 2014
Plaintiff’s Reply Brief (If Any) Due: June 24, 2014

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
Indicate below the parties' consent choice.
A.

( ) All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a
United States Magistrate Judge.

B.

(X) 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.
-3-

The parties agree that the Joint Case Management Plan may be altered or amended only
upon a showing of good cause.
DATED this 25th day of February, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/John L. Kane

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

APPROVED:

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Gordon W. Williams

/s/ Stephanie Lynn F. Kiley 2/24/2014

By: Stephanie Lynn F. Kiley

Gordon W. Williams
143 Union Blvd., Suite270
Lakewood, CO 80228
303-988-2841
[e-mail]
Attorney for Plaintiff

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
Social Security Administration
1961 Stout Street, Suite 4169
Denver, CO 80294-4003
303-844-0815
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant.

-4-