PRESCOTT v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER, No. 1:2021cv00210 - Document 22 (D. Me. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION granting 18 Motion to Amend By MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAREN FRINK WOLF. (tcs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
PRESCOTT v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER Case 1:21-cv-00210-JAW Document 22 Filed 08/23/22 Page 1 of 3 Doc. 22 PageID #: 1171 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE PATRICIA P., Plaintiff v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:21-cv-00210-JAW ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION Last month, I recommended that the Court vacate the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision denying the Plaintiff disability benefits and remand this matter for further proceedings. See Report and Recommended Decision (ECF No. 17). 1 The Plaintiff now moves to amend my recommended decision “to specify that the period under consideration on remand is the period” from May 2, 2018 2 (the date she applied for benefits), to November 3, 2020 (the date of the ALJ’s decision under review). See Motion (ECF No. 18). She argues that such specification is necessary to prevent the ALJ from reexamining a subsequent grant of benefits effective November 4, 2020. See id. The ALJ’s decision was the final decision of the Commissioner. See Recommended Decision at 2. The Plaintiff inconsistently refers to her date of application as both May 8, 2018, and May 18, 2018. See Motion at 1, 3; Reply (ECF No. 21) at 7. The Commissioner does not address this aspect of the Plaintiff’s request, see Opposition (ECF No. 20), but I note that the ALJ listed the Plaintiff’s date of application as May 2, 2018, see Record at 23. The record is not entirely clear, but the Plaintiff accepted May 2, 2018, as the correct date in her statement of errors, see Statement of Errors (ECF No. 11) at 2, so I will use that date. 1 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00210-JAW Document 22 Filed 08/23/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1172 The Commissioner opposes the Plaintiff’s request on the basis that it would improperly restrain the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) authority to reopen a determination or decision. See Opposition at 2. The Commissioner acknowledges that this Court has granted similar motions in the past but contends that those decisions should be overruled primarily because they are inconsistent with the procedures outlined in the SSA’s Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law Manual (“HALLEX”). See id. at 9-12. Having carefully considered the Commissioner’s arguments, I am not persuaded that I should depart from this Court’s well-established precedent on this issue. See Heather B. v. Saul, No. 2:19-cv-00484-JDL, 2020 WL 5106585, at *1-2 (D. Me. Aug. 31, 2020) (collecting cases and limiting the temporal scope of the recommended remand over the Commissioner’s objection), aff’d, 2020 WL 6163126 (D. Me. Oct. 21, 2020); see also Daniel R. L. v. Saul, No. 1:20-cv-00258-DBH, 2021 WL 2801954, at *6 (D. Me. July 5, 2021) (rec. dec.) (“[T]he HALLEX does not have the force of law . . . .”), aff’d sub nom., Daniel R. L. v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 3115820 (D. Me. July 22, 2021). Rather, “[i]n keeping with this [C]ourt’s precedent when claimants have raised similar concerns,” Dishman v. Colvin, No. 2:16-cv-00082-JAW, 2017 WL 238419, at *1 (D. Me. Jan. 19, 2017) (rec. dec.), aff’d, 2017 WL 499892 (D. Me. Feb. 7, 2017), I GRANT the Plaintiff’s motion and hereby amend my recommended decision to limit the review on remand to the period from May 2, 2018, to November 3, 2020. 2 Case 1:21-cv-00210-JAW Document 22 Filed 08/23/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1173 NOTICE In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to review by the District Court and to any further appeal of this order. Dated: August 23, 2022 /s/ Karen Frink Wolf United States Magistrate Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
