Farler v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
12
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 11 Report and Recommendation. The Court REVERSES and REMANDS the decision of the Commissioner. On remand, the ALJ is instructed to re-evaluate Plaintiff's claim in light of Dr. Archde acon's treatment record. While the Commissioner is considering the new and material evidence on remand, this case is ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. However, this Court retains jurisdiction over this action such that should Plaintiff be dissatisfied with the new decision of the Commissioner on remand, Plaintiff may petition the Court for entry of an Order reinstating the case on the active docket for judicial review of the new decision. Plaintiff must file said petition within 30 days of the da te of the Commissioners new decision. Should both sides be satisfied with the Commissioners new decision following remand, the prevailing party shall, within 30 days of the Commissioners decision, petition the Court for entry of a final Order adopting and ratifying the new decision. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 8/24/2011. (km1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JADA FARLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
NO. 1:10-CV-657
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (doc. 11), to which there were no
objections. For the reasons indicated herein, the Court ADOPTS and
AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security
Income (SSI) on December 13, 2006, alleging a disability due to a
motor vehicle accident which resulted in her left hand and right
ankle being crushed (Id.).
After Plaintiff’s claims were denied
initially and upon reconsideration, she requested a hearing de novo
before an Administrative Law Judge (Id.). On October 22, 2009, ALJ
Smith denied Plaintiff’s SSI application (Id.).
The Appeals
Council subsequently denied her request for review (Id.).
On
appeal to this Court, Plaintiff maintains that ALJ Smith erred in
three respects.
First, for not holding the record open for
submission of additional material evidence which was relevant to
Plaintiff’s allegations of continuing disability and meeting of a
Medical
Listing
requiring
a
sentence
six
remand
(Id.).
Specifically, Plaintiff contends she received new and material
medical
evidence
from
her
treating
orthopedic
surgeon,
Dr.
Archdeacon, on the same day the ALJ issued her decision.
In
Plaintiff’s view, such evidence should be considered by the ALJ
with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for SSI (Id.). As for her second
and third claims of error, Plaintiff contends the ALJ failed to
find that Plaintiff meets or equals Medical Listing 1.06, and
failed in not accepting the treating physician’s opinions as to her
functional capacity (Id.).
Concerning Plaintiff’s first claim, the Magistrate Judge
found
that
Plaintiff
has
demonstrated
“good
cause”
for
not
incorporating the additional evidence into the record at the prior
hearing and that the additional evidence is both new and material
(Id.).
The Magistrate Judge therefore found that a remand of this
matter to the Social Security Administration is warranted under
sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Id.).
The Magistrate Judge
further stated that in light of this decision, the Court should
make no ruling on Plaintiff’s remaining substantive challenges to
the ALJ’s decision (Id. citing Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89,
98 (1991); Raitport v. Callahan, 183 F.3d 101, 103-04 (2nd Cir.
1999)).
Having reviewed this matter, and noting no objections,
2
the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s analysis well-reasoned and
thorough. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 11) in all respects, and
REVERSES and REMANDS the decision of the Commissioner.
On remand,
the ALJ is instructed to re-evaluate Plaintiff’s claim in light of
Dr. Archdeacon’s treatment record.
While the Commissioner is
considering the new and material evidence on remand, this case is
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.
However, this Court retains jurisdiction
over this action such that should Plaintiff be dissatisfied with
the new decision of the Commissioner on remand, Plaintiff may
petition the Court for entry of an Order reinstating the case on
the active docket for judicial review of the new decision.
Plaintiff must file said petition within 30 days of the date of the
Commissioner’s new decision.
Should both sides be satisfied with
the Commissioner’s new decision following remand, the prevailing
party
shall,
petition
the
within
Court
30
for
days
of
entry
of
the
a
Commissioner’s
final
Order
decision,
adopting
and
ratifying the new decision.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 24, 2011
s/S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?