Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Horsky v. Colvin

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

November 22, 2016

KATHLEEN M. HORSKY Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION

          JAMES B. ZAGEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff Kathleen M. Horsky asks this Court to remand her case to the Social Security Administration based on new evidence about one of her treating doctors, Dr. Bina Oommen. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants this remand pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

         OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

         Horsky seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security which found that she was not entitled to a period of disability or disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 416(i), 423.

         Horsky filed an application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits on April 25, 2011. In her application, she alleged that she became disabled on June 23, 2006. Her application was denied and she sought a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). A hearing was held on July 19, 2012 where Horksy, a medical expert, and a vocational expert testified.

         On November 19, 2012, an ALJ found that Horsky was not disabled and could perform a significant number of jobs in the national economy. In making this determination the ALJ relied in part on the opinion and observations of Dr. Bina Oommen. Plaintiff requested review of the ALJ's decision, but the Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ decision the final decision of the Commissioner.

         Horksy filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 20, 2014, seeking a remand to a new ALJ, alleging various errors made by the ALJ. After the Commissioner responded to that motion, Horsky cited a new reason for remand in her reply brief - the existence of new evidence. In open court on September 15, 2016, Horksy's attorney requested that the Court remand the case in light of new evidence, and the attorney for the Commissioner agreed that such a remand was appropriate. I now grant Horsky's oral motion for remand and stay the motion for summary judgment pending a reconsideration of Horsky's case by the ALJ in light of this new evidence.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         In light of the existence of new evidence brought forward after Horsky's initial filing for summary judgment, I review Horsky's motion for remand sought pursuant to the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which provides:

[The Court] may at any time order additional evidence to be taken before the Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

         Evidence is material “if there is a reasonable possibility that it would have changed the outcome of the Secretary's determination.” Sears v. Bowen, 840 F.2d 394, 400 (7th Cir. 1988). Evidence is new if it was “not in existence or available to the claimant at the time of the administrative proceeding.” Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 626 (1990).

         ANALYSIS

         Horksy argues that a remand should be ordered in light of new evidence about Dr. Oommen. After Horsky's case arrived in this Court, the State of Illinois, Department of Financial and Professional Regulation filed a Complaint against Dr. Oommen. In that Complaint, the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation has asked that Dr. Oommen's physician's license be revoked, suspended, placed on probation, or otherwise disciplined. I agree that a remand is appropriate in light of this Complaint.

         The Department's Complaint is material because the ALJ considered Dr. Oommen's observations when evaluating Horsky's case. Dr. Oommen reported that Horksy appeared to be over-exaggerating her symptoms. He said he had a concern that Horsky's symptoms were for secondary gain or to acquire social security benefits. He accused Horsky of trying to “buddy up” with him. He concluded that she had reversible issues and could handle a number of jobs in the workforce. Dr. Oommen cleared Horsky to work at a low-impact job for 35-40 hours a week. When the ALJ ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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