Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

LAMBERT v. ASTRUE, 3:10-cv-435. (2012)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20120126891 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 24, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 24, 2012
Summary: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1 and ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CLARIFY THE JANUARY 9, 2011 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. 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 su
More

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 and ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO CLARIFY THE JANUARY 9, 2011 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

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.

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 through the date of Claimant's death on October 10, 2005.

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, an award of benefits from October 15, 1999 through October 10, 2005 is appropriate. The remainder of the Court's analysis and recommendation remains the same.

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) AND ENDING OCTOBER 10, 2005 (Date of Claimant's death); and 3. This case be TERMINATED upon the Court's docket.

FootNotes


1. Attached hereto is NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Supplemental Report and Recommendation.
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.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer