Blocho v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Citation | 634 F. Supp. 930 |
Decision Date | 14 May 1986 |
Docket Number | No. Civ-83-720E.,Civ-83-720E. |
Parties | Wojciech W. BLOCHO, Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
Josephine A. Greco, Buffalo, N.Y., for plaintiff.
Donald A. Simet, Asst. U.S. Atty., Buffalo, N.Y., for defendant.
This appeal by the Secretary from the June 26, 1985 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate presents the sole question whether the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984 ("the Reform Act"), Pub.L. No. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794 (1984), mandates a remand to the Secretary for reconsideration of all actions relating to medical improvement within its meaning. The Magistrate held, consistent with his previous decisions — see e.g. Decision and Order of the Magistrate in Rizzi v. Heckler, CIV-83-1064E (W.D.N.Y. April 18, 1985) —, that such automatic remand is not required where the record provides a ground, independent of the medical improvement issue, for reversal of the Secretary's decision. Because the Magistrate found a number of independent grounds for reversal in this case, he recommended that it be remanded to the Secretary solely for the computation and reinstatement of all benefits. The Secretary has not objected to the Magistrate's finding of independent grounds but only to the Magistrate's conclusion that the existence of such avoids the necessity of automatic remand in light of the medical improvement issue.
Section 2(d)(2) of the Reform Act provides in pertinent part as follows:
As was noted in Stewart v. Heckler, 599 F.Supp. 298, 300 (S.D.N.Y.1984), "it would not be a rational construction of the new law to require a remand in a case where it is clear that benefits must be restored regardless of what findings may or may not be made on remand with respect to plaintiff's medical improvement." Such a result would not be "humane" or "understandable." See also Colella v. Heckler, 604 F.Supp. 593 (E.D.Pa.1985); Claassen v. Heckler, 600 F.Supp. 1507 (D.Kansas 1985).
The Secretary argues that Stewart v. Heckler should be distinguished because the court in that case had already applied the relevant medical improvement standard so that remand to the Secretary would result in redundant litigation. It is clear, however, that the analysis in such case is broader than that. See 599 F.Supp., at 300 fn. 6. This Court agrees with that analysis and believes it should apply to the case at bar. Language in the House Conference Report further supports the conclusion that the remand provision is not as all...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vargas v. Calabrese, Civ. A. No. 85-4725.
... ... the ability to read, write, and do math, have good health, and reasonable familiarity with the election laws ... ...
-
Andino v. Bowen, 84 Civ. 8226 (RLC).
...are applied. See Stewart v. Heckler, 599 F.Supp. 298, 300 & n. 6 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (Sprizzo, J.); Blocho v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 634 F.Supp. 930, 932 (W.D.N.Y. 1986). Here the Secretary's decision that Andino is capable of work was not based on substantial evidence and was a......
- Hoch v. Phelan