Swain v. Berryhill

Swain v. Berryhill

Plaintiff:	Darryl Swain
Defendant:	Nancy A. Berryhill
Case Number:	6:2017cv06110
Filed:	February 21, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of New York
Office:	Rochester Office
County:	Monroe
Presiding Judge:	Charles J. Siragusa
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
June 13, 2018	Filing 17 DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings [#13] is denied, and Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [#11] is granted insofar as this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for clarification of the reason that Plaintiff does not meet Listing 12.05(C). The Court is expressly not remanding the matter for a new de novo hearing, or for a reconsideration of Plaintiff's physical impairments. Nor is the Court remanding the matter for the ALJ to revisit steps four and five of the sequential analysis, unless, for some reason, upon remand the ALJ changes his mi nd about his step three finding. Rather, the Court is remanding the matter for the limited purpose of obtaining clarification of the finding concerning Listing 12.05(C). To the extent that Plaintiff's motion [#11] is based upon anything other than the Commissioner's determination at step three concerning Listing 12.05(C), it is denied. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 6/13/18. (KAP)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

Date Filed

Document Text

June 13, 2018

Filing 17 DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 11 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings [#13] is denied, and Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [#11] is granted insofar as this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for clarification of the reason that Plaintiff does not meet Listing 12.05(C). The Court is expressly not remanding the matter for a new de novo hearing, or for a reconsideration of Plaintiff's physical impairments. Nor is the Court remanding the matter for the ALJ to revisit steps four and five of the sequential analysis, unless, for some reason, upon remand the ALJ changes his mi nd about his step three finding. Rather, the Court is remanding the matter for the limited purpose of obtaining clarification of the finding concerning Listing 12.05(C). To the extent that Plaintiff's motion [#11] is based upon anything other than the Commissioner's determination at step three concerning Listing 12.05(C), it is denied. Signed by Hon. Charles J. Siragusa on 6/13/18. (KAP)-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: Swain 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: Darryl Swain
Represented By:	Kenneth R. Hiller
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
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?