Bailey v. Berryhill

Bailey v. Berryhill

Plaintiff:	Rhonda M. Bailey
Defendant:	Nancy A. Berryhill
Case Number:	4:2017cv01353
Filed:	April 19, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	St. Francois
Presiding Judge:	Nannette A. Baker
Nature of Suit:	Disability Insurance
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 205
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 2, 2018	Filing 22 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief which Bailey seeks in her Complaint and Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. [Docs. 1 , 16 .]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ALJs decision of Feb ruary 21, 2017 is REVERSED and REMANDED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon remand, the Commissioner should give more weight to the opinions of the consultative examiners and treating providers who actually examined Bailey and whose opinions were consist ent with the record as a whole. The ALJ should not give Dr. Cremerius opinion the most weight or any significant weight. Then, the Commissioner must develop a new RFC determination for the time period from the alleged onset date to June 2, 2014 regar ding Baileys mental health impairments.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Judgment of Reversal and Remand will be filed contemporaneously with this Memorandum and Order remanding this case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further consideration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence 4.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 10/02/2018. (AAS)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 2, 2018

Filing 22 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the relief which Bailey seeks in her Complaint and Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Complaint is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. [Docs. 1 , 16 .]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the ALJs decision of Feb ruary 21, 2017 is REVERSED and REMANDED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon remand, the Commissioner should give more weight to the opinions of the consultative examiners and treating providers who actually examined Bailey and whose opinions were consist ent with the record as a whole. The ALJ should not give Dr. Cremerius opinion the most weight or any significant weight. Then, the Commissioner must develop a new RFC determination for the time period from the alleged onset date to June 2, 2014 regar ding Baileys mental health impairments.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Judgment of Reversal and Remand will be filed contemporaneously with this Memorandum and Order remanding this case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further consideration pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence 4.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 10/02/2018. (AAS)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bailey v. Berryhill
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Rhonda M. Bailey
Represented By:	Traci L. Severs
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Nancy A. Berryhill
Represented By:	Jane Rund(Designation Assistant US Attorney)
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?