Staib v. Colvin

Staib v. Colvin

Plaintiff:	Christina Staib
Defendant:	Carolyn Colvin
Case Number:	2:2015cv06775
Filed:	November 25, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	Arthur D. Spatt
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 402 Social Security Benefits
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
February 8, 2019	Filing 48 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER re 33 Motion for Attorney's Fees. On December 4, 2018, Judge Lindsay issued a 47 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that Plaintiff be awarded $9,660.00 in attorneys' fees and $623.72 in costs, for a total amount of $10,283.72. Judge Lindsay electronically served a copy of the R&R on the parties. It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not filed objections. As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error). Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Plaintiff is awarded attorneys' fees and costs in the amount explained in the R&R. SEE ATTACHED "DECISION" for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/8/2019. (Coleman, Laurie)
May 30, 2017	Filing 31 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 25 Motion to Remand. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Plaintiffs motion for a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) is granted in part, and denied in part; and the Defendants motion to reverse the final decision of the Commissioner and to remand for further proceedings is granted in its entirety. The Plaintiffs motion is granted to the extent that th e final decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and the case is remanded. It is denied to the extent that the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The ALJ is directed to obtain any and all relevant medical evidence between the dates of June 1, 2012 and February 27, 2014; to obtain treatment records from Dr. Bedard and Dr. Sweetland; to evaluate the three sets of documents submitted by the Plaintiff that were previou sly not considered; to take any further steps necessary to complete the administrative record; and conduct a new hearing. See Valentin v. Colvin, No. 3:16-CV-245 (MPS), 2017 WL 923903, at 5 (D. Conn. Mar. 8, 2017) ([T]he ALJ should not only c onduct a new hearing but should take any steps necessary to complete the administrative record and issue a new decision after full development of the record and a new hearing.); Rose, 202 F. Supp. 3d at 247 (remanding case for the ALJ to develop the record more fully and provide the plaintiff with a full and fair hearing); Yankus, 2008 WL 4190870, at 8 (finding that the ALJs failure to adequately develop the Administrative Record as well as the ALJ not consider[ing] all of the relevan t factors (especially plaintiff s credibility)--warrants remand of this case for a complete and fair hearing, and at which the plaintiff shall have the opportunity to present any evidence she wishes in support of her application). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the case. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. It is SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 5/30/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 8, 2019

Filing 48 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER re 33 Motion for Attorney's Fees. On December 4, 2018, Judge Lindsay issued a 47 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that Plaintiff be awarded $9,660.00 in attorneys' fees and $623.72 in costs, for a total amount of $10,283.72. Judge Lindsay electronically served a copy of the R&R on the parties. It has been more than fourteen days since the service of the R&R, and the parties have not filed objections. As such, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, this Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error, and finding none, now concurs in both its reasoning and its result. See Coburn v. P.N. Fin., No. 13-CV-1006 (ADS) (SIL), 2015 WL 520346, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2015) (reviewing Report and Recommendation without objections for clear error). Accordingly, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. The Plaintiff is awarded attorneys' fees and costs in the amount explained in the R&R. SEE ATTACHED "DECISION" for details. So Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 2/8/2019. (Coleman, Laurie)

May 30, 2017

Filing 31 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting 25 Motion to Remand. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Plaintiffs motion for a judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) is granted in part, and denied in part; and the Defendants motion to reverse the final decision of the Commissioner and to remand for further proceedings is granted in its entirety. The Plaintiffs motion is granted to the extent that th e final decision of the Commissioner is reversed, and the case is remanded. It is denied to the extent that the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The ALJ is directed to obtain any and all relevant medical evidence between the dates of June 1, 2012 and February 27, 2014; to obtain treatment records from Dr. Bedard and Dr. Sweetland; to evaluate the three sets of documents submitted by the Plaintiff that were previou sly not considered; to take any further steps necessary to complete the administrative record; and conduct a new hearing. See Valentin v. Colvin, No. 3:16-CV-245 (MPS), 2017 WL 923903, at *5 (D. Conn. Mar. 8, 2017) ([T]he ALJ should not only c onduct a new hearing but should take any steps necessary to complete the administrative record and issue a new decision after full development of the record and a new hearing.); Rose, 202 F. Supp. 3d at 247 (remanding case for the ALJ to develop the record more fully and provide the plaintiff with a full and fair hearing); Yankus, 2008 WL 4190870, at *8 (finding that the ALJs failure to adequately develop the Administrative Record as well as the ALJ not consider[ing] all of the relevan t factors (especially plaintiff s credibility)--warrants remand of this case for a complete and fair hearing, and at which the plaintiff shall have the opportunity to present any evidence she wishes in support of her application). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the case. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. It is SO ORDERED by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 5/30/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)

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 New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Staib v. Colvin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Carolyn Colvin
Represented By:	SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION - GENERIC
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 ]
Plaintiff: Christina Staib
Represented By:	Jeffrey D. Delott
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?