Judith A. Saunders v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services

951 F.2d 1260, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 32545, 1991 WL 268848
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
DecidedDecember 11, 1991
Docket91-7067
StatusPublished

This text of 951 F.2d 1260 (Judith A. Saunders v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Judith A. Saunders v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, 951 F.2d 1260, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 32545, 1991 WL 268848 (10th Cir. 1991).

Opinion

951 F.2d 1260

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Judith A. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human
Services, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-7067.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Dec. 11, 1991.

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR and EBEL, Circuit Judges.*

ORDER AND JUDGMENT**

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a denial of social security disability benefits. The Plaintiff-Appellant ("Saunders") was denied benefits for her alleged disability by the Appeals Council of the Department of Health and Human Services upon the recommendation of an administrative law judge. The district court affirmed this denial and Saunders appealed.

On September 3, 1991, the Defendant-Appellee ("Sullivan") filed an Unopposed Motion to Remand for further administrative proceedings including supplemental vocational expert testimony. Saunders has filed no motion in opposition, and Sullivan has stipulated: "Appellee has contacted counsel for appellant and he has no objection to a remand in this case." Upon a review of the record we find no reason why we should not grant Sullivan's Unopposed Motion to Remand.

Accordingly, we REMAND this case for further administrative proceedings including supplemental vocational expert testimony.

*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered submitted without oral argument

**

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
951 F.2d 1260, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 32545, 1991 WL 268848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/judith-a-saunders-v-louis-w-sullivan-md-secretary--ca10-1991.