Bayne v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 17

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 15 Defendant's Motion to Remand. IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner's motion to remand 15 is herein GRANTED and this matter be remanded back to the Agency for a new hearing and new decision so that the ALJ can correct any mistakes related to the 2/27/2019 decision. Objections to R&R due by 5/23/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 5/9/2022. (km)

Case: 1:21-cv-00229-MRB-SKB Doc #: 17 Filed: 05/09/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 1156

KEVIN B1,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 1:21-cv-229

Plaintiff,
Barrett, D.J.
Bowman, M.J.

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This civil action is now before the Court on the Commissioner’s motion to remand
(Doc. 15) and the Plaintiff’s response thereto. (Doc. 16)
The Commissioner seeks an order and judgment reversing the final decision of
the Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), with remand to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings and a
new decision. In response to the Commissioner’s motion, Plaintiff opposes the
proposed remand terms only because they do not shield the agency’s October 2021
determination granting Plaintiff disability benefits for the period beginning February 28,
2019, based on disability benefits applications that he filed in October 2020.
However, as noted by the Commissioner the agency’s October 2021
determination and the underlying October 2020 benefits applications are not properly
before this Court. The instant civil action is limited to Plaintiff’s challenge to the ALJ’s
February 27, 2019 decision (See Tr. 33-46), which adjudicated disability benefits
applications that Plaintiff filed in 2016 and 2018. (Tr. 46). As such, that ALJ decision
1

The Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of
the United States has recommended that, due to significant privacy concerns in social security cases,
federal courts should refer to claimants only by their first names and last initials. See General Order 2201.

Case: 1:21-cv-00229-MRB-SKB Doc #: 17 Filed: 05/09/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 1157
became the Commissioner’s final decision regarding the 2016 and 2018 applications
when the agency’s Appeals Council denied review in March 2020 (Tr. 14). The agency’s
October 2021 determination and the underlying October 2020 benefits applications are
not part of the administrative record filed in the instant civil action. Therefore, the
commissioner contends that they are not properly before this Court. E.g., Bass v.
McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 512-13 (6th Cir. 2007). The undersigned agrees.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner’s motion to remand (Doc.
15) is herein GRANTED and this matter be remanded back to the Agency for a new
hearing and new decision so that the ALJ can correct any mistakes related to the
February 27, 2019 decision.
s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

2

Case: 1:21-cv-00229-MRB-SKB Doc #: 17 Filed: 05/09/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 1158

KEVIN B,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 1:21-cv-229

Plaintiff,
Barrett, D.J.
Bowman, M.J.

vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS
of the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the
portion(s) of the R&R objected to,and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law
in support of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. Failure to
make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.
1981).

3