Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Substantive rulingFiled July 25, 2024

Clarissa W. v. O'Malley

Judge
Eric Tostrud
Docket
0:23-cv-00729
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
2
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Clarissa W.-J. v. O’Malley, Judge Tostrud remanded the Social Security case to clarify mental work capacity and possible vocational-expert testimony.

Who this affects

The ruling affects Clarissa W.-J. and the Commissioner of Social Security. The case returns to the Commissioner for clarification of Clarissa W.-J.’s mental residual functional capacity during a 30-day training period and, if necessary, vocational-expert testimony concerning the step-five analysis.

What happened

Clarissa W.-J. v. O’Malley concerned Clarissa W.-J.’s request to reverse or send back the Social Security Commissioner’s decision. The Commissioner asked the court to affirm that decision.

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended a result on July 10, 2024. Neither party objected, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Eric C. Tostrud accepted the recommendation. The court granted in part and denied in part Clarissa W.-J.’s request, denied the Commissioner’s request to affirm, and sent the case back to clarify Clarissa W.-J.’s mental residual functional capacity during a 30-day training period and the reasons for that capacity assessment, with vocational-expert testimony if necessary regarding the final step of the analysis.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Clarissa W. v. O'Malley · No. 0:23-cv-00729
Judge
Eric Tostrud
Date
July 25, 2024

Background

Clarissa W.-J. asked the court to reverse or remand the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision. The Commissioner asked the court to affirm the decision.

Report and Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on July 10, 2024. Neither party objected. Under that circumstance, Judge Tostrud reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record or analysis. He found no clear error and accepted the recommendation.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part Clarissa W.-J.’s request to reverse or remand the Commissioner’s decision. It denied the Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision.

The case was remanded for the purpose of clarifying Clarissa W.-J.’s mental residual functional capacity during a 30-day training period and the bases for that capacity assessment. Residual functional capacity is the person’s ability to perform work-related activities. The court also directed that relevant testimony from a vocational expert be obtained if necessary concerning the step-five analysis, which is the part of the Social Security evaluation addressing whether a person can perform other work. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.