From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Neal v. Astrue

United States District Court, M.D. Florida
Jan 8, 2010
Case No. 8:09-cv-1125-T-TBM (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 8:09-cv-1125-T-TBM.

January 8, 2010


ORDER


THIS MATTER is before the court on the Commissioner's Motion for Reconsideration and Objection to Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement the Record (Doc. 25). By this motion, the Commissioner seeks reconsideration of the court's Order (Doc. 23) of December 16, 2009, granting Plaintiff's motion to supplement (Doc. 19). As grounds, the Commissioner asserts that the court granted the motion before his response was due, the record should not be supplemented as urged by Plaintiff because the pre-hearing conversation at issue is not part of the certified administrative record, and the pre-hearing conversation does not satisfy the requirements for consideration of new evidence under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition, however, a claim pertinent to the matter is raised in Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to the Commissioner's decision. See (Doc. 26).

The motion was inadvertently docketed as a response.

Upon consideration, the motion (Doc. 25) is DENIED. The import of the pre-hearing conversation, if any, and whether it is appropriate for the court to consider the same, will be addressed upon consideration of the parties' memoranda.

Done and Ordered in Tampa, Florida.


Summaries of

Neal v. Astrue

United States District Court, M.D. Florida
Jan 8, 2010
Case No. 8:09-cv-1125-T-TBM (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2010)
Case details for

Neal v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:JAN NEAL, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the United…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida

Date published: Jan 8, 2010

Citations

Case No. 8:09-cv-1125-T-TBM (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2010)