(SS) French v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) French v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedSeptember 30, 2021

Docket2:18-cv-02191

StatusUnknown

This text of (SS) French v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) French v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(SS) French v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES FRENCH, No. 2:18-cv-2191-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 26, 2020 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 18 No. 21), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten (10) days. On November 9, 2020, the 20 Commissioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 22), to which 21 plaintiff responded (ECF No. 23). The court has carefully considered the parties’ filings. 22 In light of the filings and in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 23 and Local Rule 304, this court also has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having 24 reviewed the file, and pertinent portions of the record, the court finds the findings and 25 recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. In particular, the 26 court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes it is 27 appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations as presented in full. 28 ///// 1 The court clarifies that in remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings the 2 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will have the opportunity to consider all information now 3 available on plaintiff’s right foot mass, including whatever information has come to light since 4 the ALJ’s previous decision. Cf. Clem v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 328, 332 (9th Cir. 1990) (A claimant 5 may seek remand if “there is new evidence which is material, and [ ] there is good cause for the 6 failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.” (quoting 42 U.S.C. 7 § 405(g)). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations ECF No. 21, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 9 2. The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) is DENIED; 10 3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED IN PART; 11 4. This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings; and 12 5. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor and close the case. 13 DATED: September 29, 2021. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES FRENCH, No. 2:18-cv-2191-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On October 26, 2020 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF 18 No. 21), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 19 findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten (10) days. On November 9, 2020, the 20 Commissioner filed objections to the findings and recommendations (ECF No. 22), to which 21 plaintiff responded (ECF No. 23). The court has carefully considered the parties’ filings. 22 In light of the filings and in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 23 and Local Rule 304, this court also has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having 24 reviewed the file, and pertinent portions of the record, the court finds the findings and 25 recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. In particular, the 26 court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes it is 27 appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations as presented in full. 28 ///// 1 The court clarifies that in remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings the 2 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will have the opportunity to consider all information now 3 available on plaintiff’s right foot mass, including whatever information has come to light since 4 the ALJ’s previous decision. Cf. Clem v. Sullivan, 894 F.2d 328, 332 (9th Cir. 1990) (A claimant 5 may seek remand if “there is new evidence which is material, and [ ] there is good cause for the 6 failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding.” (quoting 42 U.S.C. 7 § 405(g)). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations ECF No. 21, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 9 2. The Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) is DENIED; 10 3. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED IN PART; 11 4. This matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings; and 12 5. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in plaintiff’s favor and close the case. 13 DATED: September 29, 2021. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(SS) French v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-french-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack