Jolene J. v. O'Malley
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:23-cv-02297
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Jolene J.-D. v. O’Malley, Judge Bryan granted Jolene’s summary-judgment motion in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded.
Jolene J.-D. and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; the case returns to the agency for further proceedings before the administrative law judge.
What happened
In Jolene J.-D. v. Martin J. O’Malley, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation in Jolene J.-D.’s challenge to a Social Security decision. Neither party objected to the recommendation.
The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation. It granted Jolene J.-D.’s motion for summary judgment in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and sent the matter back to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan ordered the administrative law judge to explain whether Jolene J.-D.’s residual functional capacity should include limits to brief and superficial workplace interactions and, if necessary, obtain further testimony from a vocational expert based on a revised hypothetical question.
The detailed version
- Jolene J. v. O'Malley · No. 0:23-cv-02297
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- July 19, 2024
Background
The matter concerned Jolene J.-D.’s challenge to a Social Security decision. The court considered a report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko on July 1, 2024. Neither party filed objections within the permitted time.
Court’s Review
Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation.
Rulings
The court granted Jolene J.-D.’s motion for summary judgment in part. It denied Martin J. O’Malley’s motion for summary judgment.
The court remanded the matter to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the report and recommendation. On remand, the administrative law judge must explain why Jolene J.-D.’s residual functional capacity should or should not be further limited to brief and superficial workplace interactions. If necessary to address new hypothetical questioning based on a modified residual functional capacity, the administrative law judge must also recall a vocational expert for testimony.
Disposition
The report and recommendation was adopted, Jolene J.-D.’s summary-judgment motion was granted in part, Martin J. O’Malley’s summary-judgment motion was denied, and the matter was remanded for further administrative proceedings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.