LAFOREST v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER, No. 1:2023cv00048 - Document 32 (D. Me. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE accepting 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 12 SOCIAL SECURITY BRIEF, denying as moot 29 Motion to Amend. By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (mnd)

Download PDF
LAFOREST v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER Doc. 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) HEATHER L., Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 1:23-cv-00048-JDL ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Heather L. seeks judicial review of the Social Security Administration Commissioner’s final decision determining that she is not disabled and denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (ECF No. 1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(3) (West 2024) and D. Me. Local R. 16.3(a)(2), United States Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Statement of Errors (ECF No. 12) on December 13, 2023. The Magistrate Judge filed her Recommended Decision with the Court on February 2, 2024 (ECF No. 28), recommending that the Court vacate the Commissioner’s decision. The time within which to file objections has expired, and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to object would waive their right to de novo review and appeal. After the Magistrate Judge filed her Recommended Decision with the Court, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 29), 1 Dockets.Justia.com requesting that the Court add language to “specify that the period under consideration on remand is that period commencing September 9, 2019[,] and continuing up to April 3, 2022.” ECF No. 29 at 3. The Commissioner filed a response (ECF No. 31) indicating that he does not object to the motion. Having reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, I concur with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions as set forth in her Recommended Decision. I also conclude that it is appropriate for the Court to limit the scope of the remand to the timeframe that the Plaintiff has identified. See Heather B. v. Saul, No. 2:19-CV-00484-JDL, 2020 WL 5106585, at *3 (D. Me. Aug. 31, 2020) (rec. dec.) (“[I]n an abundance of caution, and in keeping with this court’s precedent when claimants have raised similar concerns that the commissioner will use remand as a vehicle to revisit a subsequent favorable grant of disability benefits, I recommend that the court remand this case with the instruction that proceedings be limited to the period at issue in the appeal before the court . . . .” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), aff’d, 2020 WL 6163126 (D. Me. Oct. 21, 2020). It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 28) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED, the Commissioner’s decision is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West 2024) for further administrative action consistent with this opinion. It is further ORDERED that the scope of this remand is limited to the period from September 9, 2019, through April 3, 2022, and the 2 Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 29) is DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED. Dated this 29th day of March, 2024. /s/ Jon D. Levy U.S. DISTRICT 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.