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.

Cosenza v. Colvin

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Rock Island Division

December 19, 2016

JAMIE COSENZA, on behalf of J.M.F., a minor, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.

          ORDER

          SARA DARROW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court are Plaintiff Jamie Cosenza's Motion to Hold the Commissioner in Contempt, ECF No. 20; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 23; Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 29; and Plaintiff's Motion to Deny the Defendant's Motion to Strike, ECF No. 30.[1] On September 14, 2016, Magistrate Judge Hawley filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion to strike be granted, and the motion for summary judgment stricken. Sep. 14, 2016 Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 31. On September 26, 2016, Cosenza filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation (“Obj.”), ECF No. 32. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion to Strike is GRANTED and the motion for summary judgment STRICKEN. Cosenza's Motion to Hold the Commissioner in Contempt is DENIED.

         BACKGROUND

         Cosenza, on behalf of her minor son (“Claimant”), initiated a claim with the Social Security Administration for supplemental social security income in 2011. After the claim was denied by both an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) and the Appeals Council, Cosenza filed suit in District Court on June 4, 2014, seeking judicial review of that final decision. Compl. 1-2, ECF No. 1. The District Court, adopting Judge Hawley's Report and Recommendation, remanded the case to the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and instructed the ALJ to re-examine the record and clarify certain findings and conclusions. July 24, 2015 Order 4-5, ECF No. 18. The Social Security Administration's Appeals Council provided notice to Cosenza that the case was remanded, and issued a remand order directing the ALJ to “take any further action needed” to decide the case. See Not. Remand, ECF No. 20 at 24; Nov. 4, 2015 Appeals Council Order, ECF No. 20 at 24. The ALJ held a hearing on March 30, 2016, and issued a decision unfavorable to Claimant on July 13, 2016. Jul. 13, 2016 SSA Decision, ECF No. 24-1.

         Though the federal court case had closed on August 11, 2015, Cosenza filed a motion in the District Court on June 23, 2016 to hold the SSA Commissioner in contempt of court, arguing that the SSA purposefully failed to follow the District Court's remand order. Contempt Mot. ECF No. 20. Cosenza also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 1, 2016. The motion states that Cosenza had appealed Claimant's case to the Appeals Council “to preserve the right to bring suit in District Court.” Mot. Summ. J. 1, 6. The SSA moved to strike the motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Court did not have jurisdiction over the action because Cosenza (1) had not exhausted administrative remedies on Claimant's behalf, (2) had not received a final decision subject to judicial review, and, in any case, (3) would need to file a new civil action to do so. Mot. Strike Mot. Summ. J. 1. Magistrate Judge Hawley's Report and Recommendation, issued in response to the SSA's motion, found that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to review the ALJ's decision. Sep. 14, 2016 Report and Recommendation 4. Cosenza then timely filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 32, on September 26, 2016, which the Court considers below.

         ANALYSIS

         I. Administrative Exhaustion of Social Security Claim

         a. Legal Standard

         When a magistrate judge makes a written Report and Recommendation in a social security matter, the district court reviews de novo any portion of his findings to which written objections have been made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (requiring the district court judge, for dispositive matters, to “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to”). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id. Unobjected portions of the record are reviewed only for clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).

         b. Analysis

         Judicial review in federal court of determinations made by the Commissioner of Social Security is “limited.” Griffith v. Callahan, 138 F.3d 1150, 1152 (7th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by Johnson v. Apfel, 189 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 1999)). The scope of judicial review in social security cases, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405, extends only to those decisions in which the Commissioner has reached a final decision, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the findings of the agency are upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Griffith, 138 F.3d at 1152.

         After careful analysis of the relevant Social Security regulations and the record in this case, the Court finds that Judge Hawley correctly concluded that the Court lacks jurisdiction. In her Objections to the Report and Recommendation, Cosenza argues on Claimant's behalf that the SSA abused its discretion by not complying with the remand order issued by the District Court, and that the SSA has otherwise failed to “follow laws and administrative rules.” Obj. 3. She further argues that due to the agency's alleged noncompliance, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not fatal to the District Court's consideration of her claim. Id. 12. These arguments fail.

         First, Cosenza indicated to the Court that she filed exceptions for the Appeals Council to consider. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that appeals process, laid out in 20 C.F.R. § 416.1484, had not yet yielded a final decision for the Court to review, and that, regardless, the case was terminated when the District Court remanded the case. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-97 (1993); Richmond v. Chater, 94 F.3d 263, 269-70 (7th Cir. 1996). The Court has received no formal notice from Cosenza or the Appeals Council indicating that the Council has assumed jurisdiction, upheld the ALJ's second decision, or taken action of any kind regarding her filed exceptions. See § 416.1484(b)-(c). Further, § 405(g) clearly states that a federal court's decision to remand is a final judgment. § 405(g). See also Shalala, 509 U.S. at 297-98 (holding that a sentence-four remand “fits squarely” into the definition of “final judgment”).

         Additionally, the ALJ's decision on remand was delayed, and it was adverse to Claimant; however, Cosenza uses those facts to insinuate that the decision was riddled with legal error and noncompliant with procedural rules. Obj. 14-16. In its review of the ...


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.