Stieberger v. Sullivan

801 F. Supp. 1079, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18951, 1992 WL 241289
District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 29, 1992·No. 84 Civ. 1302 (LBS)·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING MODIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT

SAND, District Judge.

The parties, by their respective attorneys, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. The parties construe the definition of the class on page 1 of the Settlement Agreement entered on the docket by the Court on June 22, 1992, 792 F.Supp. 1376, as including individuals who resided in New York State on the date of the SSA decision to deny or terminate their claim for or continuation of disability benefits, unless they later established residence outside of New York State and SSA thereafter issued a final termination or denial on administrative review of the same claim.

2. The Settlement Agreement is modified as follows, with alterations indicated by strikeouts and underlining:

(A) “[9](d) A class- member shall be considered to have requested reopening if the class member (i) mails a postage prepaid, pre-addressed form enclosed with the individual notice, or (ii) makes a written request to any SSA FO or hearing office within the State of New York or to the Appeals Council, or (iii) telephones a request to any SSA FO or hearing office within the State of New York or the Appeals Council, or (iv) makes a request in person at any SSA FO or hearing office within the State of New York, or (v) makes a request in writing or in person to any SSA field office if the individual no longer resides in New York State.”

(B) “10. After a class member described in paragraph 8 requests reopening under paragraph 9 and is determined to meet the criteria in paragraphs 8 and 9, SSA will provide relief as explained in this paragraph. In adjudicating reopened claims, SSA shall require its decisionmakers and reviewers of decisions to apply the holdings in Second Circuit disability decisions in accordance with the provisions set forth in this settlement agreement, including the instruction set forth as Attachment 1, except that, in adjudicating reopened claims at the hearing and Appeals Council review levels outside of New York State for individuals who no longer reside in New York State, decisionmakers will use standards and procedures in effect in the state in which the individual resides at the time of the OHA decision. SSA will issue a reminder to decisionmakers and reviewers to apply the Circuit Court Case Guide in HAL-LEX in adjudicating reopened claims at the hearing and Appeals Council review levels outside of New York State for individuals who no longer reside in New York State. SSA shall require the decisionmakers and reviewers to apply the law in effect on the date on which the new determination on the reopened claim is rendered.”

(C) “[10](a) SSA shall reopen, and review de novo, class member claims, except that no claims shall be reopened pursuant to this settlement for which SSA denied or terminated benefits on administrative review (on grounds other than that disability had been previously determined administratively in New York State prior to the issuance of Attachment 1) in a final decision or determination on a date when the individual no longer resided in New York State, and no claims shall be reopened pursuant to this settlement for which the denial or termination of benefits was affirmed on the merits by a final decision of a federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), as-of the date of settlement, except as provided by subparagraph 10(b)(4). No claim shall be subject to reopening for which the denial or termination of benefits was overturned as the result of an administrative or judicial appeal.”

(D) “[10](b) Class members entitled to reopening under paragraph 8, who have civil actions pending pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) or § 1383(c)(3) in one of the four United States District Courts situated in New York State or in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as of the date of settlement based upon an Appeals Council denial of a request for review or an Appeals Council decision of *1081 denial or termination, issued on or before the date of issuance of Attachment 1, will be given the option of proceeding with their individual court cases or receiving reopening pursuant to this settlement. SSA shall promptly provide each such class member or the class member’s representative in court with a notice (Attachment 3) explaining this option.”

(E) “[10(b) ](4) If any such class member or his or her representative in court does not receive this notice, the class member shall have the right to have his claim reopened under this settlement, as a pending claim under subparagraph 10(e)(3), even after issuance of an adverse federal court decision, so long as the class member’s court case was pending on or before (as appropriate) 60 days after the date of issuance of Attachment 1.”

(F) “[10(d) ](3) As alerts are transferred to the FOs, reopened claims for class members currently residing in New York State will be integrated into the regular claims determination workload of the New York ODD and will be completed within a reasonable time and with no less priority than such regular claims. Reopened claims for class members who do not reside in New York State will also be completed within a reasonable time.”

(G) “[10(e) ](4) In conducting each reopening of claims that are not pending, SSA shall develop the record in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512-.1518, 416.912-.918 for a four-year period preceding the date SSA receives the request for reopening of the elaim(s). In computing the four-year period, SSA shall not count any period for which the person (i) received disability benefits, (ii) received retirement benefits, or (iii) has an active claim for disability or retirement benefits, or (iv) has a final denial or termination (on grounds other than that disability had been previously determined administratively in New York State prior to the issuance of Attachment 1) issued on a date when the person no longer resided in New York State. SSA shall also develop the record for the period subsequent to the date SSA receives the request for reopening, unless the person has already demonstrated entitlement to benefits for this period. SSA need not develop the record for any period of time prior to the effective date of the earliest claim subject to reopening or for any period of time for which SSA determines that the individual is disabled without further development.”

(H) “[10(e) ](5) If SSA determines (at any step of the sequential evaluation process) that the individual is not disabled, or is not entitled to disability benefits because of SGA, for all or any part of the period for which the record is developed under sub-paragraph 4, SSA will also develop the record for the additional earlier period for which there is in effect an application the determination on which establishes the opportunity for reopening as set forth in paragraph 8 (except for periods for which SSA has issued a final denial or termination on a date when the individual resided outside of New York State on grounds other than that disability had been previously determined administratively in New York State prior to the issuance of Attachment 1), if_”

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

Stieberger v. Sullivan, 801 F. Supp. 1079, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18951, 1992 WL 241289 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).

801 F. Supp. 1079 (Stieberger v. Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Martinez v. Berryhill
S.D. New York, 2021
Moran v. Astrue
Second Circuit, 2009
Rivera v. Barnhart
494 F. Supp. 2d 228 (S.D. New York, 2007)
Surgeon v. Commissioner of Social Security
190 F. App'x 37 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Pizzo v. Barnhart
325 F. Supp. 2d 438 (S.D. New York, 2004)
Ruano v. Barnhart
87 F. App'x 210 (Second Circuit, 2004)
Strougo ex rel. Brazilian Equity Fund, Inc. v. Bassini
258 F. Supp. 2d 254 (S.D. New York, 2003)
STROUGO EX REL. BRAZILIAN EQUITY FUND v. Bassini
258 F. Supp. 2d 254 (S.D. New York, 2003)
Edwards Ex Rel. Edwards v. Barnhart
238 F. Supp. 2d 645 (S.D. New York, 2003)
Stieberger v. Commissioner of Social Security
166 F. Supp. 2d 845 (S.D. New York, 2001)
Dombrowski v. Chater
960 F. Supp. 558 (N.D. New York, 1997)
Frank v. Chater
924 F. Supp. 416 (E.D. New York, 1996)
Torres v. Shalala
Fifth Circuit, 1995
Mijares v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
887 F. Supp. 57 (E.D. New York, 1994)