Lambert v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
26
AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court RECOMMENDS as follows: 1. The decision of the Commissioner be found UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, and REVERSED; 2. This case be REMANDED FOR AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF WIDOW'S INSURANC E BENEFITS beginning on OCTOBER 15, 1999 (Claimant's disability onset date); 3. The Commissioner be ORDERED to determine the date for the termination of benefits in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.337(b) and consistent with this opinion; and 4. This case be TERMINATED upon the Court's docket. Objections to R&R due by 3/2/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 2/13/2012. (mdf1)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
PORTIA LAMBERT,
o/b/o LINDA LAMBERT,
Plaintiff,
:
Case No. 3:10-cv-435
:
:
District Judge Walter H. Rice
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
vs.
:
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
:
:
Defendant.
AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 and ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CLARIFY THE JANUARY 9, 2011 REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
This case involves a Social Security appeal brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On
January 9, 2012, this Court issued a Report and Recommendation concluding the ALJ’s finding -that Linda Lambert (hereinafter “Claimant”) was not disabled, and therefore unentitled to Widow’s
Insurance Benefits -- was unsupported by substantial evidence. Doc. 18, PageID 129-52. The Court
recommended an immediate award of benefits beginning on the alleged onset date of October 15,
1999. Id.
1
Attached hereto is NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Supplemental Report
and Recommendation.
I.
This matter is once again before the Court because of a motion, filed by Plaintiff Portia
Lambert2 on January 20, 2012, to clarify the Report and Recommendation. Doc. 19. Having fully
considered the issues raised in Plaintiff’s motion, the Court agrees that benefits should be awarded
from the onset date of October 15, 1999 through the month before the Claimant’s death in October
2005. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.337(b).
As Plaintiff appropriately cites, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.336(c)(1), Claimant -- as a prior
recipient of mother’s benefits through May 1993 -- was eligible to receive continuing Widow’s
Insurance Benefits if she could prove that she was disabled by May 31, 2000. See tr. 81. In addition
to finding that the ALJ’s non-disability decision was unsupported by substantial evidence, the Court
also found that Claimant met this burden. Moreover, the record is clear that there was no evidence
of any medical improvement between May 2000 and October 2005. Therefore, benefits should be
awarded from October 15, 1999 through an end date to be determined by the Commissioner in
accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.337(b).
The remainder of the Court’s analysis and
recommendation remains the same.
2
Although neither party has raised the issue of standing, the Court nevertheless notes its
obligation to raise standing issues sua sponte. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S.
103, 109 (2001). Claimant died on October 10, 2005 while her application was pending. In order
to continue pursuing her claim, Claimant’s daughter, Portia Lambert (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), was
substituted as Plaintiff in this action on April 16, 2006. Tr. 558-59, 585-585A. As Claimant’s child,
Plaintiff is among the enumerated individuals who has standing to pursue her deceased mother’s
claim for benefits. See Youghioheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Webb, 49 F.3d 244, 247 (6th Cir.
1995)(citing 42 U.S.C. § 404). Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim is properly before this Court.
2
II.
Based upon the foregoing as well as the analysis contained in the January 9, 2012 Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff’s motion to clarify is GRANTED.
The Court therefore
RECOMMENDS as follows:
1.
The decision of the Commissioner be found UNSUPPORTED BY
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, and REVERSED;
2.
This case be REMANDED FOR AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF
WIDOW’S INSURANCE BENEFITS beginning on OCTOBER 15, 1999
(Claimant’s disability onset date);
3.
The Commissioner be ORDERED to determine the date for the termination of
benefits in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.337(b) and consistent with this
opinion; and
4.
This case be TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket.
s/Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge
February 13, 2012
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this
Report and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e), this period is extended to seventeen
days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P.
5(b)(2)(B)(C), or (D) and may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension.
Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a
memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendations are based in
whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall
promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree
upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs.
A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with a
copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on
appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638 F. 2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985).
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?