Whiteley v. Social Security

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMarch 3, 2022
Docket3:21-cv-00191
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Whiteley v. Social Security, (D. Nev. 2022).

Opinion

1 Taylor, Esq. 5 Of Counsel, Olinsky Law Group NV Bar No,: 4399 3 ||2551 West Lakeridge Shores Reno, NV 89519 4 |] Tel: (775) 825-2223 5 Fax: (775) 329-1113 Email: HalTaylorLawyer@gbis.com 6 Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA ° TANICIA DANIELLE WHITELEY, ) 10 ) Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 3:21-cv-00191-CLB 11 ) 12 Vv. ) } SECOND MOTION 13 ) FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ) PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF || COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) 15 ) Defendant. ) 16 ) Plaintiff by her attorney, moves for a thirty-one (31) day extension of time to file 18 Plaintiffs Opening Brief. Plaintiff's Opening Brief is currently due to be filed March 11, 2022. 19 20 Counsel requests this extension of time due to a culmination of events which have caused 21 || Such extraordinary circumstances that such extensions are warranted. As noted in the attached 22 || Declaration of Howard D. Olinsky, managing partner of Olinsky Law Group, after the initial 23 shutdown related to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the Commissioner’s capacity to 24 3s produce Administrative Records fell from 300 Administrative Records a week to essentially zero 2g || for a large portion of 2020. As of January 2021, the Agency reported over 11,000 pending cases. 27 || After months of delay due to the Agency’s inability to produce Administrative Records, the 28 Agency expanded their out-of-office capacity to over 700 Administrative Records per week. As

1 || of mid-September 2021, the Agency reduced the number of pending cases to just 2,350, a || decrease of 8,650 cases in just over nine (9) months. In tandem with the decrease in production of Administrative Records throughout 2020, the Appeals Council withheld claims containing, ; |] inter alia, claims of constitutional violations under the Supreme Court’s holding in Seila Law 6 || LEC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (June 29, 2020). As evidenced 7 |! in the attached Declaration, Olinsky Law Group went from receiving 65 Appeals Council denials ° in October 2020 to just 25 Appeals Council denials in November and December of 2020. Subsequently in January 2021, the Agency released Emergency Message-21002, which directed 11 || staff to flag claims in which the Seé/a issue was raised and to continue processing these claims 12 |) without discussing or making any finding regarding the Seifa issue. As evidenced in the attached 13 Declaration, Olinsky Law Group then received 541 Appeals Council denials in January 2021; 1,127 Appeals Council denials in February 2021; and 358 Appeals Council denials in March 15 2021. Further, these numbers only represent internal! Appeals Council denials received by the 17 || Olinsky Law Group, who represents a significant number of additional clients who are referred 18 |! to this office by non-attorney representatives or unaffiliated attorneys. Olinsky Law Group filed 202 briefs in January 2022, and this figure does not include Reply Briefs, Objections to Report and Recommendations, Responses to Motions, 59(e) 22 Responses, Oral Arguments, appeals to the Circuit Courts, EAJA petitions, Fee Litigation, 23 ||406(b) Petitions, and other miscellaneous tasks which arise throughout the course of litigation. 24 Currently, Olinsky Law Group has 165 briefs drafted or scheduled to be drafted in February °° 2022 and 154 already scheduled to be drafted in March 2022. Counsel asserts that the culmination of these factors has created extraordinary circumstances due to the exigent 28 || circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Commissioner’s response. As a

1 |; result, this has caused multiple, simultaneous filing deadlines that cannot be met by Plaintiff's 2 Counsel. Wherefore, Plaintiff requests an extension from March 11, 2022 up to and including 3 April 11, 2022 to file her brief. Counsel for the Plaintiff has conferred with Defendant’s Counsel 4 5 || who kindly consents to this request. This is the Plaintiffs second such request in this matter. 6 || Dated March 3, 2022. 7 Respectfully submitted, 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘s/ Hal Taylor 9 Hal Taylor, Esq. Dated: March 3, 2022 Of Counsel, Olinsky Law Group 10 . NV Bar No.: 4399 it 2551 West Lakeridge Shores Reno, NV 89519 12 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Fel: (775) 825-2223 Fax: (755) 329-1113 13 HalTaylorLawyer@gbis.com 14 15 . . Plaintiff's Certificate of Service: 16 I certify that I caused the Motion for Extension of Time to be served today, March 3, 17 1g 2022, by CMECF to Christopher Bella, Esq. who is a filing user of the CM/ECF system. 19 /s/ Hal Taylor 20 Hal Taylor, Esq. Of Counsel, Olinsky Law Group NV Bar No.: 4399 22 2551 West Lakeridge Shores Reno, NV 89519 23 Tel: (775) 825-2223 24 Fax: (755) 329-1113 HalTaylorLawyer@gbis.com 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

TANICIA DANIELLE WHITELEY, Plaintiff, v. 3:21-cv-00191-CLB

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Hal Taylor is Of Counsel for the Olinsky Law Group. I, HOWARD D. OLINSKY, declare and state as follows:

1. In mid-March of 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) began to restrict access to buildings, causing a large delay in CAR production for a significant portion of 2020. 2. This created a large backlog of transcripts, and a number of months where a significant portion of our Federal Court caseload was essentially stayed due to the lack of CAR production. OLG, knowing SSA’s lack of capability consented to each extension request made by the Commissioner. 3. SSA, after many months of delay, acquired the capacity to produce over 700 CARs per week. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, SSA was producing 300 CARs per week. 4. SSAs new capacity has significantly alleviated the Agency’s backlog of cases. The Agency reported over 11,000 pending cases as of January of 2021 and has reduced that number to 2,350 as of mid-September.

5. The backlog created by the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed a large volume of CARs, and their subsequent briefing deadlines, into a small span of time. 6. At the same time SSA was unable to create CARs for federal court, the AC was issuing an unusually small number of AC denials. The cases which the AC were not releasing contained, inter alia, claims of constitutional violations under the Supreme Court’s holding in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 140 S.Ct. 2183 (June 29, 2020). 7. OLG included challenges under Seila Law in briefs to the AC since Early July of

2020. After this inclusion, OLG began to receive an unusually low number of AC denials. AC DENIALS

RECEIVED October 2020 65 November 24

2020 December 23

2020 8. Emergency Message-21002, issued on January 15, 2021, states that, “a claimant or representative raises an issue based on Seila Law principles . . . staff will flag the case in CPMS or ARPS, respectively, by adding the case characteristic ‘SEIL,’ which appears in both systems under the ‘Other’ case characteristic type.”

9. Emergency Message-21002 directs all staff to “continue processing claims using current policies and business processes without discussing or making any findings related to the Seila Law issue.” 10. After the Emergency Message was issued, the AC began to release a significant number

of denials which had been held presumably pending guidance from the Agency. The number of AC denials received in late-2020 can be compared to those received in the beginning of 2021. AC DENIALS RECIEVED

January 2021 541 February 2021 1127

March 2021 358 April 2021 252 May 2021 172 11. | These numbers represent only internal AC denials, although OLG represents a significant number of additional clients who were previously represented by non- attorney representatives or unaffiliated attorneys. Poh PLOY aI 12. Ex Ere) yt)

ie} = m Leo = a0) ao

A A RN A a A nn □□ OS Se.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Whiteley v. Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whiteley-v-social-security-nvd-2022.