Stieberger v. Sullivan

792 F. Supp. 1376, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9268, 1992 WL 143747
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 22, 1992
Docket84 Civ. 1302 (LBS)
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 792 F. Supp. 1376 (Stieberger v. Sullivan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stieberger v. Sullivan, 792 F. Supp. 1376, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9268, 1992 WL 143747 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).

Opinion

OPINION

SAND, District Judge.

On June 18, 1992, pursuant to a notice adequately disseminated to the class, this Court held a hearing on the proposed settlement set forth herein. No one appeared in opposition to the proposed settlement. The Court stated its view that the settlement is in all respects fair and appropriate and that the compromises represented therein constitute a reasonable balance, especially bearing in mind the length of time that would elapse, absent a settlement, before any concrete benefits could be delivered to any class member and the costs and complexity of implementing a settlement which followed literally the contours of the Court’s liability determinations. The Court further found to be reasonable the cut-off dates set forth in the settlement and the existence of a sunset provision. The Court entered the Judgment approving the Settlement Agreement set forth in Appendix A below.

SO ORDERED.

APPENDIX A

United States District Court

Southern District of New York

84 Civ. 1302 (LBS)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

WHEREAS, an amended class action complaint was filed on August 3, 1984, and

WHEREAS, a plaintiff class was certified on August 19, 1985, and subsequently modified on December 20, 1985, and is now defined as

All New York residents whose claims for benefits or continuation of benefits have been, or will be denied or terminated since October 1, 1981, based on a determination that they do not have a disability that prevents them from engaging in substantial gainful activity and whose benefits have not been granted or restored through subsequent appeals

WHEREAS, on May 29, 1990, the court rendered a decision on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and on defendants’ *1378 motion for partial summary judgment and cross motion for judgment on the pleadings; and

WHEREAS, the parties wish to avoid further litigation in this matter,

THEREFORE, all parties to this civil action by their undersigned counsel, hereby agree, subject to the approval of the court, to the settlement of plaintiffs' claims in this litigation, in accordance with the following terms and conditions:

1.Definitions that apply to this Settlement.

(a) Disability Benefits — Benefits provided by the Social Security Administration pursuant to Titles II and XYI of the Social Security Act for persons who meet the definition of disability contained therein.

(b) Social Security Administration (“SSA”) — The Federal agency that is responsible for deciding claims for disability benefits. SSA includes the Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”) that decides such claims at the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and Appeals Council levels of administrative review, and components that supervise and review the adjudication of claims by the Office of Disability Determinations. SSA also includes various offices which employ disability examiners.

(c) Office of Disability Determinations (“ODD”) — The state agency that decides disability claims in the State of New York at the initial and reconsideration levels of administrative review on behalf of SSA pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1601 ff; 416.-1000 ff.

(d) Decisionmakers — SSA and ODD personnel who decide disability benefit claims of New York State residents under 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P; Part 416, Sub-part I.

(e) Reviewers of decisions — SSA and ODD personnel who conduct quality assurance, pre-effectuation or other reviews of determinations on disability claims of New York State residents.

(f) Second Circuit disability decisions— Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in which the Secretary of HHS is a party that are or will be published, that address the issue of whether an individual, or individuals is or are disabled within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d), 1382(c) or that address the standards or procedures for making such determinations. Pursuant to this definition the following decisions are among those not considered “Second Circuit disability decisions:” Gutierrez v. Bowen, 898 F.2d 307 (2d Cir.1990) Valente v. Sullivan (“Valente II”), 897 F.2d 54 (2d Cir.1990); Barone v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 49 (2d Cir.1989); Conley v. Bowen, 859 F.2d 261 (2d Cir.1988); DeRienzis v. Heckler, 748 F.2d 352 (2d Cir.1984); Matsibekker v. Heckler, 738 F.2d 79 (2d Cir.1984); Valente v. Sec. of Health and Human Services, 733 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir.1984); Delamater v. Schweiker, 721 F.2d 50 (2d Cir.1983); Dietsch v. Schweiker, 700 F.2d 865 (2d Cir.1983).

(g) Date of settlement — Date on which this settlement is entered by the Court.

(h) Computation of time — Time periods under this agreement: (i) exclude the day of the event from which the time period runs; (ii) for time periods of less than 11 days, exclude any day that an office that is responsible for taking the action under this agreement during the time period is closed for business (e.g., Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or due to weather or other emergency); and (iii) if such an office is closed on the date an action under this agreement is due, such action shall be due the next day the office is open for business.

2. SSA shall direct all decisionmakers and reviewers of decisions to comply with holdings in Second Circuit disability decisions in adjudicating or reviewing claims for disability benefits in accordance with the provisions of this settlement agreement.

3. SSA shall issue the attached instruction to all decisionmakers and reviewers of decisions (Attachment 1) within ten days of the date of settlement. The instruction shall be binding on all decisionmakers and reviewers of decisions.

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

Related

Martinez v. Berryhill
S.D. New York, 2021
Moran v. Astrue
Second Circuit, 2009
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)
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)
Dedis v. Chater
956 F. Supp. 45 (D. Massachusetts, 1997)
Dixon v. Shalala
54 F.3d 1019 (Second Circuit, 1995)
Torres v. Shalala
Fifth Circuit, 1995
Mijares v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
887 F. Supp. 57 (E.D. New York, 1994)
Stieberger v. Sullivan
801 F. Supp. 1079 (S.D. New York, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
792 F. Supp. 1376, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9268, 1992 WL 143747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stieberger-v-sullivan-nysd-1992.