Wood v. Colvin

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting the Defendant's 11 Partial Motion to Dismiss; whether the decision to terminate Plaintiff's benefits was based on substantial evidence remains pending; the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to refer the remaining claim to the magistrate judge pursuant to this Court's Standing Order. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 3/28/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

RANDY WOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-6502

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) pursuant
to Federal Rule 12(b)(6). This case involves a challenge to the Social Security Administration’s
redetermination process found in 42 U.S.C. § 405(u). A full discussion of Plaintiff’s background
and disability can be found in this Court’s previous order denying a preliminary injunction. See
Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 19, at 1-2.
Plaintiff’s challenges to the redetermination process replicate similar legal challenges
brought to this Court in Robertson v. Berryhill, Civ. No. 3:16-3846 (S.D.W. Va.), in Dillon v.
Berryhill, Civ. No. 2:16-4330 (S.D.W. Va.), and in Milam v. Berryhill, Civ. No. 2:16-6002
(S.D.W. Va.). The Court granted the Acting Commissioner’s motions to dismiss in all of these
cases, with detailed analyses in Robertson and Dillon. See Robertson, ECF No. 40; Dillon, ECF
No. 13. As these opinions cover all of Plaintiff’s challenges, the Court finds it unnecessary to
repeat the analysis here. Therefore, the Court incorporates the opinions from Robertson and

Dillon herein and directs the parties to those opinions for a full discussion on why Plaintiff’s
procedural challenges fail to state a claim.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11).
As the Defendant interpreted the complaint to include a substantive challenge regarding the
Administrative Law Judge’s final determination, the Court will allow this claim to continue. See
Def.’s Partial Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, at 4 n.3. Whether the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s
benefits was based on substantial evidence, therefore, remains pending. The Court DIRECTS
the Clerk to refer the remaining claim to the magistrate judge pursuant to this Court’s Standing
Order (ECF No. 3).
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.

ENTER:

-2-

March 28, 2017