Dunaway vs. SS

Dunaway vs. SS

Plaintiff:	Ebony Dunaway
Defendant:	Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number:	6:2014cv06301
Filed:	June 3, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of New York
Office:	Rochester Office
County:	Monroe
Presiding Judge:	Frank P. Geraci
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
September 29, 2015	Filing 14 DECISION & ORDER The Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings 10 is denied, and Dunaway's motion for judgment on the pleadings 8 is granted to the extent that the Commissioner's decision is reversed, and this case is rem anded to the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four, for further administrative proceedings consistent with this decision. On remand, the ALJ must evaluate E.B.'s limitations in the domain of interacting and relating wi th others. In doing so, the ALJ should explicitly consider E.B.'s CELF-4 scores and discuss whether, and to what extent, her severe speech and language delays affect her abilities in this domain. The ALJ should also contact E.B.'s teacher s to explore her reported tendency to "shut down," including the frequency and duration of such episodes, the effect of such episodes on her ability to interact and relate to others, and whether the episodes appear triggered by or related to E.B.'s speech and language deficits. The Commissioner is urged to expedite the proceedings on remand. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 9/29/2015. (KAH) -CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

Date Filed

Document Text

September 29, 2015

Filing 14 DECISION & ORDER The Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings 10 is denied, and Dunaway's motion for judgment on the pleadings 8 is granted to the extent that the Commissioner's decision is reversed, and this case is rem anded to the Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four, for further administrative proceedings consistent with this decision. On remand, the ALJ must evaluate E.B.'s limitations in the domain of interacting and relating wi th others. In doing so, the ALJ should explicitly consider E.B.'s CELF-4 scores and discuss whether, and to what extent, her severe speech and language delays affect her abilities in this domain. The ALJ should also contact E.B.'s teacher s to explore her reported tendency to "shut down," including the frequency and duration of such episodes, the effect of such episodes on her ability to interact and relate to others, and whether the episodes appear triggered by or related to E.B.'s speech and language deficits. The Commissioner is urged to expedite the proceedings on remand. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 9/29/2015. (KAH) -CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Dunaway vs. SS
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ebony Dunaway
Represented By:	Ida M. Comerford
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: Carolyn W. Colvin
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?