Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clarence Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


August 15, 2011

CLARENCE JACKSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, SUED AS MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker U.S. District Judge

E-FILED

Monday, 15 August, 2011 09:09:42 AM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

ORDER APPROVING MAGISTRATE RECOMMENDATION

In May 2010, the plaintiff, Clarence Jackson ("Jackson"), sought judicial review of the March 11, 2010, decision made by the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration -- a finding of disability that was fully favorable to Jackson. Jackson objects to the benefit amount, which was reduced due to previous overpayments made to Jackson. The Appeals Council decision did not address payment but stated that another office of the Social Security Administration would determine whether Jackson met the other eligibility requirements for disability payments. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss Jackson's complaint. On July 14, 2011, a report and recommendation was filed by Magistrate Judge David G. Bernthal, recommending that the defendant's motion to dismiss be granted. Jackson filed a timely objection to the recommendation.

The defendant argued that Jackson's complaint must be dismissed because (1) it was untimely; and (2) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because (a) the amount of the payment was not at issue in the fully favorable decision; and (b) the court cannot review a denial of benefits going back to 1991. Magistrate Judge Bernthal addressed each argument and agreed that Jackson's complaint should be dismissed.

Magistrate Judge Bernthal's report and recommendation is well reasoned and thorough. Considered alone, each argument identifies sufficient grounds for dismissal. "In cases where [the decision] is fully favorable to the claimant, the claimant cannot seek judicial review. If the individual has fully prevailed on his or her claim, he or she has no standing to appeal because he or she has received all the relief sought, leaving no case or controversy." Buck v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 923 F.2d 1200, 1203 (6th Cir. 1991). Therefore, the court need not reach the other arguments; this, alone, is dispositive.

The recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bernthal [22] is, therefore, accepted by the court. The court grants the motion to dismiss [18]. This case is terminated.

Harold A. Baker

20110815

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.