Disability Law Blog

Torres v. Barnhart, No. 03-6262 __F.3d__ (2d. Cir. August 3, 2005)

The District Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint on the ground that it was time-barred. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff, writing for the Court, says:

"The doctrine of equitable tolling applies where plaintiff’s sworn affidavit shows that he made all reasonable efforts to file his complaint but failed to do so because his lawyer had misled him as to the scope of the lawyer’s representation. Although defendant challenges some of plaintiff’s averments, it was abuse of the district court’s discretion not to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether plaintiff qualified for equitable tolling."

The case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Second Circuit to Require Briefs in PDF Format

The Second Circuit has announced a proposed rule change to its Local Rules that will require "counseled parties" to submit a brief in PDF format. The rule will not become effective until after the comment period ends on March 11, 2005.

Full text of the proposed rule change is here.

Butts v. Barnhart, No. 03-6115, __F3d.__ (2nd Cir. Nov. 2, 2004)

The Second Circuit, in an interesting decision by Circuit Judge Ralph K. Winter, Jr., holds that abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review when reviewing a District Court's decision whether to remand for further proceedings or remand for calculation of benefits. The Court also held that because the decision to remand is discretionary "the principles calling for some evaluation of relative hardships that govern a discretionary selection of alternative remedies apply." Therefore, the District Court must evaluate the hardship that further delay creates for the claimant and consider imposing a time limit on the subsequent proceedings:

"In this case, the past delay is of such magnitude -- years -- that a time limit is imperative. We therefore instruct the district court to direct that further proceedings before an ALJ be completed within 60 days of the issuance of the district court’s order and, if that decision is a denial of benefits, a final decision of the Commissioner be rendered within 60 days of Butts' appeal from the ALJ’s decision. The district court’s order should provide that, if these deadlines are not observed, a calculation of benefits owed Butts must be made immediately."

The Second joins the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Circuits in finding that an abuse of discretion standard applies: See Nelson v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 799, 802 (7th Cir. 2000); Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1173 (9th Cir. 2000); Higgins v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000). The First Circuit reviews such decisions de novo, Seavey v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2001).

Pollard v. Halter, No. 03-6007, __ F.3rd __ (2nd Cir. July 23, 2004)

The Second Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Rosemary S. Pooler, reverses and remands a child's SSI claim involving ADHD and ODD based on new and material evidence that was not considered by SSA:

"[Plaintiff] claims that the Commissioner erred in denying disability benefits to David by failing to consider new evidence regarding the severity of David’s attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) and oppositional defiant disorder (“ODD”), as well as evidence regarding neurological and chemical imbalances in his brain. A. 8. We find that the district court erred in applying outdated SSA regulations in reviewing David’s claim. Moreover, we find that the new evidence was material and should have been considered. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court with instructions to remand the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."