Filed: Jan. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR. , District Judge . Before me is Plaintiff's Motion in Support of Request for Review, Defendant's Contested Voluntary Motion to Remand, and Plaintiff's reply in opposition to Defendant's motion to remand. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion to remand will be granted. On June 19, 2007, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for supplemental security income ("SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1381-83f. After nearly
Summary: MEMORANDUM J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR. , District Judge . Before me is Plaintiff's Motion in Support of Request for Review, Defendant's Contested Voluntary Motion to Remand, and Plaintiff's reply in opposition to Defendant's motion to remand. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion to remand will be granted. On June 19, 2007, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for supplemental security income ("SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1381-83f. After nearly 1..
More
MEMORANDUM
J. WILLIAM DITTER, JR., District Judge.
Before me is Plaintiff's Motion in Support of Request for Review, Defendant's Contested Voluntary Motion to Remand, and Plaintiff's reply in opposition to Defendant's motion to remand. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion to remand will be granted.
On June 19, 2007, Plaintiff protectively filed an application for supplemental security income ("SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-83f. After nearly 10 years of administrative hearings and remands by this court, Plaintiff was deemed disabled as of June 3, 2011, and awarded benefits by the Appeals Council.1 At issue in the current case under review is Plaintiff's disability status for the closed period from June 19, 2007 through June 2, 2011.
Defendant requests remand of the instant matter to the Social Security Administration for additional evaluation of the Commissioner's decision not to award benefits for the closed period from June 19, 2007 through June 2, 2011.2 The Commissioner states on remand, the Appeals Council would affirm the portion of the Appeals Council's decision that was favorable to Plaintiff and direct the administrative law judge to obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony for the remaining period — June 19, 2007 through June 2, 2011 — in compliance with the Social Security Administration's Acquiescence Ruling 01-1(3).
Plaintiff objects to a remand based exclusively upon supplemental vocational expert testimony. She points out that this is the third appeal of her case to this court and that failure to address all of the issues presented in her request for review would squander judicial resources as it will simply result in a fourth appeal to this court.3
Comprehensive review of the issues presented by Plaintiff in her Request for Review is essential for complete evaluation of Plaintiff's disability claim. The procedural history of this case is long and tortured. It has gone on too long. As a result, I will grant Defendant's motion for remand and in addition to obtaining supplemental vocational expert testimony, direct Defendant to specifically address the issues presented in Plaintiff's Request for Review. Hopefully, this process can be completed within three (3) months of remand.
