Kimm W. v. O'Malley
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:23-cv-02497
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Kimm W. v. O’Malley, Judge Bryan remanded the Social Security matter after granting and denying both sides’ summary-judgment motions in part.
Kimm W. and the Social Security Administration; the Commissioner must conduct further administrative proceedings consistent with the remand order.
What happened
In Kimm W. v. O’Malley, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning the parties’ competing motions for summary judgment. Neither party objected to the recommendation before the deadline.
The court found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation. It granted in part and denied in part both Kimm W.’s motion and the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the administrative law judge must explain whether Kimm W.’s ability to have brief and superficial interactions with supervisors should further limit the work capacity finding and must obtain additional testimony from a vocational expert if needed.
The detailed version
- Kimm W. v. O'Malley · No. 0:23-cv-02497
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Aug. 21, 2024
Background
The matter came before the district court on the July 15, 2024 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko. Kimm W. and Martin J. O’Malley, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, each filed a motion for summary judgment. Neither party filed a timely objection to the report and recommendation.
Court’s Review
Because there were no timely objections, the court reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error. The court stated that it found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part Kimm W.’s motion for summary judgment. It also granted in part and denied in part the Commissioner’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. The order specifies that, on remand, the administrative law judge should explain why Kimm W.’s residual functional capacity—the person’s work-related ability—should or should not be further limited to brief and superficial workplace interactions with supervisors. The administrative law judge should also recall a vocational expert for testimony if necessary to address new hypothetical questions based on a modified residual functional capacity.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.