Jaxson v. Berryhill

Filing 55

MOTION by Plaintiff Tyler N Jaxson for judgment (JOINT) (Seibold, Stephanie)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WESTERN DIVISION
Tyler J.
Plaintiff,
vs.
Andrew Marshall Saul,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:17-cv-50090
Magistrate Judge Lisa A. Jensen

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the Seventh Circuit’s instructions in the two pending appeals in this case, the
parties jointly move the Court to enter a new judgment, one that is both approved by Magistrate
Judge Jensen and specifies the relief being awarded.
At oral argument on June 5, 2020, members of the Seventh Circuit panel assigned to the
appeals expressed the view that the court of appeals might not have jurisdiction because this
Court’s judgment (Dkt. No. 46) is deficient in two respects: first, because it contains no
indication that it was reviewed by Magistrate Judge Jensen; and second, because the judgment
itself (as opposed to the judgment read together with the Court’s opinion at Dkt. No. 45) does not
state the relief to which the plaintiff is entitled. See Oral Argument Recording, Jaxson v. Saul,
Nos. 19-3011 & 19-31251 (7th Cir. June 5, 2020), at 3:40-4:13 and 27:29-28:21, available at
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/sound/external/cm.19-3011.19-3011_06_05_2020.mp3; see also
Johnson v. Acevedo, 572 F.3d 398, 400 (7th Cir. 2009) (setting forth these requirements). The
court of appeals therefore gave the parties 14 days (i.e., until June 19, 2020) to request a new
judgment from this Court. Oral Argument Recording at 48:43-49:18.
To assist the Court, the parties propose language below for use in a final judgment that
they believe addresses the Seventh Circuit’s concerns. To comply with that court’s timetable,

the parties respectfully request that this Court enter final judgment in this case no later than June
19, 2020.
Tyler J.’s proposed language:
The decision of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) is reversed and the case is
remanded for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On
remand, SSA must provide plaintiff with an opportunity to rebut the determination that
there is reason to believe that fraud was involved in the submission of evidence signed by
Dr. Frederic Huffnagle before that evidence is disregarded pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(u)(1)(B). SSA also must conduct the proceedings on remand consistent with the
agency’s process for conducting agency-initiated determinations under HALLEX I-1-325. It is further ordered that plaintiff’s benefits be reinstated while the remand is
pending, subject to SSA’s rules on payment eligibility.
Commissioner Saul’s proposed language:
The decision of the Social Security Administration (SSA) is reversed and the case is
remanded for further proceedings. On remand, SSA must provide plaintiff with an
opportunity to rebut the determination that there is reason to believe that fraud was
involved in the submission of evidence signed by Dr. Frederic Huffnagle before that
evidence is disregarded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(u)(1)(B). It is further ordered that
plaintiff’s benefits be reinstated while the remand is pending, subject to SSA’s rules on
payment eligibility.
June 10, 2020

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Stephanie R. Seibold
STEPHANIE R. SEIBOLD
BLACK & JONES ATTORNEYS AT LAW
308 West State Street, #300
Rockford, IL 61101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
JOHN R. LAUSCH, Jr.
United States Attorney
By: s/ Monica V. Mallory
MONICA V. MALLORY
Assistant United States Attorney
327 South Church Street, Suite 3300
Rockford, Illinois 61101
[phone]
[e-mail]