Warehouse Clearance Sharon H. V. Comm’r Of Soc. Security Admin., Case No. 2:23-cv-00468-rmg- Mgb (d.s.c. Sept. 15, 2023) Perfect For Gifting [bQtLZ5sB]

Sharon H. v. Comm’r of Soc. Security Admin., Case No. 2:23-cv-00468-RMG- MGB (D.S.C. Sept. 15, 2023) (Order by U.S. District Judge Richard M. Gergel)

Briefs for purchase:

• Plaintiff’s Brief
• Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Contested Motion for Entry of Social Security Judgment with remand order 

Topics addressed:

• Specific impairments - depression

• Specific impairments - incontinence

• Severity standard

• Duration requirement

• RFC - breaks due to incontinence

• RFC - medical regimen and its impact on RFC

• Past work - composite jobs

• Court remand orders - duty to follow

• Appeals Council remand orders - duty to follow

• Remand for an award of benefits - entitlement to benefits clear from the record

• Harmless error

Rulings addressed:

• Social Security Ruling 82-61

• Social Security Ruling 96-8p
  

Issues briefed:

1)  On remand, the ALJ’s residual functional capacity finding again failed to reflect a proper evaluation of Plaintiff’s urological impairments.

2) Although the ALJ addressed his prior failure to account for the absenteeism that would result from Plaintiff’s frequent medical treatment, the ALJ erred by finding that she would not have needed any time away from work prior to November 16, 2015.

3) The ALJ erroneously determined that Plaintiff could return to her past work as a hospital admitting clerk and medical unit secretary prior to November 16, 2015.

4) This Court should remand Plaintiff’s case for an award of benefits for the period from November 27, 2013, until November 15, 2015.

Court decision:
This case had been remanded by the court on two previous occasions and in this appeal, after Plaintiff filed her brief, the Commissioner offered a voluntary remand for further proceedings. Plaintiff opposed the remand, arguing:

remand for an award of benefits is the proper remedy, given the facts and circumstances of this case, rather than allowing the Commissioner a fourth chance to bolster the record with new vocational testimony when the evidence contains unrebutted vocational testimony addressing the issues at hand. See Plaintiff’s Brief (Doc. #7 at 33-36). In addition, if this Court finds remand for further administrative proceedings is the proper remedy, [Sharon H.] requests the order clarify the terms of remand and specify that the proceedings on remand should address all contentions of error raised by Sharon H.

Plaintiff’s Brief at 1-2.

After filing its opposition to the remand motion, the court entered the following text order:

ORDER: A baseball analogy appears particularly appropriate in response to the Commissioner’s request: three strikes and you are out. The Court will not grant any further requests for remand for a disability application that has been pending for over 9 years. The motion for remand (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED. The Commissioner’s brief in response to the Plaintiff’s brief (Dkt. No. 7) is due within 30 days of this order. The Commissioner is directed to address in detail the Plaintiff’s argument that the Court should reverse the decision of the Commissioner and order an award of benefits. See (Dkt. No. 13 at 4-7). In light of the lengthy administrative and judicial processing of this matter, the Court directs that this matter going forward will not be referred to the Magistrate Judge but will be handled by this Court. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 8/17/23.

In subsequent negotiations following the entry of this Order, the Commissioner agreed to the award of benefits and filed a Motion to Remand which was granted by the Court, awarding benefits for the entire period at issue.