Opinion
CASE NO. 1:15-cv-01474
07-20-2016
LATONYA L. WARD, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER
Following the Appeals Council's June 6, 2015, issuance of an unfavorable decision, Plaintiff Latonya L. Ward filed the within action on July 27, 2015, seeking reversal and remand of the Commissioner's decision. Doc. 1. Defendant Commissioner filed an Answer (Tr. 10) and Transcript of Proceedings (Doc. 11). Thereafter, the parties filed their briefs. Docs. 13, 16, 17.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this Court has jurisdiction to review the final decision of the Commissioner when a civil action is commenced within sixty days after the mailing of notice of said decision to the claimant. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In their briefs, both parties assert that the Appeals Council declined review of the Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ") decision and therefore the ALJ's decision is the final decision of the Commissioner. Doc. 13, pp. 1-2; Doc. 16, pp. 1, 16.
The parties are correct that, when the Appeals Council denies a claimant's request for review of the ALJ's decision, the "final decision" for judicial review is the ALJ's decision. Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103, 107 (2000). However, "if the Appeals Council grants review of a claim, then the decision that the Council issues is the Commissioner's final decision." Id. at 106-107.
In this case, contrary to the both parties' statements in their briefs, on April 20, 2015, the Appeals Council granted Plaintiff's request for review of the ALJ's January 2, 2014, decision. Tr. 168-171. Thereafter, on June 6, 2015, the Appeals Council issued a Notice of Appeals Council Decision Unfavorable, enclosing "the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security in [Plaintiff's] case." Tr. 1-9. Accordingly, the final decision for judicial review in this case is the decision of the Appeals Council. See Sims, 530 U.S. at 107, see also Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 538 (6th Cir. 1986) ("[I]t is well settled that final action by the Appeals Council becomes indeed the final determination of the Secretary for purposes of judicial review under section 205(g), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g))."); Spaw v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 110 F.3d 65, 1 (6th Cir. 1997) (table decision) (reviewing the Appeals Council's decision for substantial evidence where the Appeals Council had granted a claimant's request for review and ultimately concurred with the ALJ's finding that the claimant was not disabled); Torres-Tricoche v. Astrue, 2010 WL 606793, * (D. Puerto Rico) (Feb. 18, 2010) ("Where the Appeals Council accepts review of the ALJ's decision and issues its own decision, that decision becomes the final decision of the Commissioner . . . [and] it is the court's role to examine the record and determine whether there is substantial medical evidence that supports the Appeals Council's decision.").
The parties' briefs address the issue of whether the ALJ's January 2, 2014, decision is supported by substantial evidence. However, as discussed herein, that decision is not the final decision of the Commissioner for purposes of judicial review by this Court. Accordingly, the parties' briefs (Docs. 13, 16, and 17) are hereby STRICKEN and the parties are ordered to file briefs addressing whether the Appeals Council's June 6, 2015, decision is supported by substantial evidence. The parties shall adhere to the following briefing schedule:
- Plaintiff's brief due on July 29, 2016
- Defendant's brief due on August 9, 2016
- Plaintiff's reply, if any, due on August 12, 2019
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 20, 2016
/s/_________
Kathleen B. Burke
United States Magistrate Judge