SCOTT v. ASTRUE, No. 1:2007cv01185 - Document 31 (S.D. Ind. 2009)
Court Description: ENTRY REVIEWING COMMISSIONERS DECISION: The Court, being duly advised,AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner for the reasons set forth below. DENIED 26 MOTION to Remand filed by LARRY SCOTT (see entry). Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/26/09.(DWH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION LARRY SCOTT, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 1:07-cv-1185-WTL-JMS ) ) ) ) ) ENTRY REVIEWING COMMISSIONER S DECISION The Plaintiff, Larry Scott, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 405(g) seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ( Commissioner ) denying his application for disability insurance benefits ( DIB ). The Court, being duly advised, AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner for the reasons set forth below. On March 3, 2008, a briefing schedule was issued in this case which ordered Scott to file a brief in support of his complaint within twenty-eight days. Within the briefing schedule was the following explanation of what was required in the brief: To the extent that the claimant contends that the evidence presented to the Administrative Law Judge does not support or contradicts the findings or conclusions reached, the brief should contain specific references to the administrative record relied upon to raise such contentions. Plaintiff s brief shall provide legal argument with proper citation to United States Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit case law (or persuasive cases from other federal Circuits) . After seeking and obtaining four extensions of time, Scott filed a motion to remand this case to the Commissioner on June 2, 2008. The two-page motion is not accompanied by a brief, contains no citations to the record, no citations to relevant authority, and no substantial legal argument. Rather, the motion simply makes the barest assertion of five different errors by the Administrative Law Judge; in essence, it simply sets out five paragraph headings without the accompanying paragraphs. It is well-settled that it is not this court's responsibility to research and construct the parties arguments. Where, as here, a party fails to develop the factual basis of a claim on appeal and, instead, merely draws and relies upon bare conclusions, the argument is deemed waived. Muhich v. C.I.R,. 238 F.3d 860, 864 (7th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and numerous citations omitted). Scott s motion in this case is a textbook example of the type of skeletal argument, really nothing more than an assertion that does not preserve a claim for review. See United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.1991). Therefore, there is nothing for the Court to consider in this case. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the record and the Commissioner s brief in support of his decision, which addresses the arguments suggested by Scott and cites to ample legal authority and evidence of record to demonstrate that the decision was both legally sound and supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the motion to remand is denied and the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. SO ORDERED: 01/26/2009 _______________________________ Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Copies to: Annette Lee Rutkowski KELLER & KELLER annette@2keller.com Thomas E. Kieper UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE tom.kieper@usdoj.gov 2
]]>
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.
