Kirk v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 70

ORDER STAYING CASE staying the matter, holding in abeyance all pending motions pending final resolution of the related matters before the Sixth Circuit, and directing counsel for the parties to notify the court within fourteen days of any final decision by the Sixth Circuit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 01/16/2019. (bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Gary Kirk,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Commissioner of Social Security
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:17-2189-DCC-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiff, Gary Kirk, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3)
to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the defendant, Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”), following a redetermination hearing in which the Commissioner terminated
Kirk’s benefits. Kirk’s case is procedurally is similar, if not identical to, a series of cases that are
all currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit or before district
courts within that circuit. It appears that these cases all stem from claimants who were represented
by Eric C. Conn, Esquire (a Kentucky lawyer) with applications assigned to Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”) David B. Daugherty and medical opinions from one of four doctors, including Kirk’s
doctor. The complaints in these matters include allegations that the redetermination process violates
the Social Security Act, the claimants’ right to due process, and the Administrative Procedure Act
(“APA”).
In late 2016, three different judges in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Kentucky issued differing rulings on some of these issues, and these cases were appealed to
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and consolidated. (See Nos. 17-5206 (Hicks),
17-5211 (Blackburn), 17-5212 (Ousley), 17-5213 (Justice), 17-5214 (Jenkins), 17-5215 (Adams),
Page 1 of 2

17-5216 (Hale), 17-5598 (Perkins), 17-5614 (Griffin, Howard, & Martin) (6th Cir.)). Shortly after
briefing concluded in the above-captioned matter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit issued a decision, see Hicks v. Commissioner of Social Security, 909 F.3d 786 (6th Cir.
2018), determining that the Social Security Administration had violated the claimants’ procedural
due process rights and the formal-adjudication requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.
However, the decision is not yet final and contains a dissent. Further, based on the Sixth Circuit
docket, it appears that the Commissioner intends to seek rehearing en banc.
In light of the foregoing, and in the interest of justice, the court finds that this matter should
be stayed and all pending motions should be held in abeyance pending final resolution of the related
matters before the Sixth Circuit, which will likely provide persuasive authority in the matters at
issue here. Counsel for the parties are directed to notify the court within fourteen days of any final
decision by the Sixth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
January 16, 2019
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2