Burleson v. Colvin
Filing
30
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; final decision of dft is reversed and action is remanded to social security administration by Judge Richard A Jones. (RS)
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
SHARON ELAINE BURLESON,
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
CASE NO. C13-2269RAJ
v.
ORDER
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, in her capacity
as Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Defendant.
The court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the
Honorable James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge. It has also reviewed
Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R, the Commissioner’s response to those objections, and
Plaintiff’s recent summary judgment motion. As stated below, the court ADOPTS the
R&R (Dkt. # 25), DENIES Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. # 26) solely to the extent that it
requests that the court direct the Social Security Administration to award her benefits,
REVERSES the Commissioner’s final decision, and REMANDS this action to the Social
Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the R&R. The court
directs the clerk to TERMINATE Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (Dkt. # 29) and
to enter judgment for Plaintiff.
The court concurs wholly with the R&R’s conclusion that the Social Security
Administration, both before the administrative law judge who denied Plaintiff’s claim for
benefits and on appeal to its Appeals Council, badly mishandled Plaintiff’s claim. Were
27
28
ORDER – 1
1
it possible to award Plaintiff benefits as a sanction for the Social Security
2
Administration’s shabby handling of Plaintiff’s claim, this might well be a case in which
3
the court would award this relief. The court cannot, however, award benefits as a
4
sanction. And, as the R&R points out, the record below gives the court no basis to
5
determine if Plaintiff is entitled to disability benefits. Even if the court were inclined to
6
award benefits, the medical record in the skimpy record before the court would not
7
permit the court to reach any conclusions about whether Plaintiff is disabled. See
8
Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1019 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that courts have exercised
9
power to remand for award of benefits “when it is clear from the record that a claimant is
10
entitled to benefits”).
11
From the outset of this appeal, the Commissioner has conceded errors that
12
occurred within the Social Security Administration. The Commissioner’s counsel avers
13
that efforts were made to contact Plaintiff to stipulate to a remand, but that those efforts
14
were fruitless. Plaintiff has represented herself without the benefit of an attorney in this
15
appeal, perhaps because she obtained so little benefit from the attorney who represented
16
her in administrative proceedings. Nonetheless, the court concurs with the R&R’s
17
recommendation that Plaintiff endeavor to find counsel to assist her as she navigates the
18
Social Security Administration on remand.
19
The court overrules Plaintiff’s objection to the extent it requests that the court
20
order an award of benefits. The court also declines to grant her recent summary
21
judgment motion, which seeks the same relief. Although the court can engage in limited
22
fact-finding on a fully-developed administrative record, Congress has declared that the
23
Social Security Administration is responsible for developing that record in the first
24
instance. The court declines to entertain Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
25
26
The court ADOPTS the R&R, REVERSES the final decision of Defendant, and
REMANDS this action to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings
27
28
ORDER – 2
1
consistent with the R&R. The clerk shall enter judgment for Plaintiff and ensure that
2
Judge Donohue receives notice of this order.
3
DATED this 9th day of December, 2014.
4
6
A
7
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Court Judge
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – 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?