Summary
remanding to the Commissioner for further proceedings in light of inconsistent disability determinations covering nearly the same time period and largely based upon the same evidence
Summary of this case from Parker v. AstrueOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-3630, SECTION "F".
October 27, 2009
ORDER
Local Rule 07.5E of the Eastern District of Louisiana requires that memoranda in opposition to a motion be filed eight days prior to the date set for hearing on the motion. No memoranda in opposition to the plaintiff's motion to vacate, set for hearing on October 28, 2009, has been timely submitted.
Accordingly, this motion is deemed to be unopposed, and further, it appearing to the Court that the motion has merit, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to vacate is GRANTED as unopposed; the Court hereby vacates its Order dated September 16, 2009. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that the Court, having considered the complaint, the record, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and the plaintiff's arguments in support of her motion to vacate this Court's prior order, hereby approves the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion herein.
On September 16, 2009, the Court dismissed Ms. Fisher's case against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, finding that her appeal of the denial of benefits was moot, given that she was subsequently awarded benefits in a separate, later administrative proceeding. Ms. Fisher now asserts that dismissal on grounds of mootness was improper because the later favorable decision and award of benefits listed her original application date as December 17, 2007, instead of January 24, 2006. Ms. Fisher asserts that, while she ultimately did receive a favorable ruling, the time period for which she is now being awarded benefits is erroneous; a fully favorable decision would mean, says Ms. Fisher, that she would be eligible to begin receiving monthly payments in January 2005, not December 2006. Because the fully favorable decision on which the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment was based erroneously determined her filing date to be December 17, 2007, Ms. Fisher says she would be losing 23 months of payments. The Court finds that the plaintiff has shown that her case should be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that plaintiff's case is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).