Fleurima v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION LOURDES FLEURIMA, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 8:19-cv-2835-T-AAS ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. __________________________________________/ ORDER Lourdes Fleurima requests that the court stay these proceedings for sixty days to obtain evidence in a subsequent claims file. (Doc. 20). The Commissioner opposes the motion. (Doc. 21).

After an unfavorable decision on November 9, 2018, Ms. Fleurima applied for social security benefits again. On June 25, 2020, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Ms. Fleurima disabled as of November 10, 2018, one day after the unfavorable decision. Ms. Fleurima argues there is a reasonable possibility that evidence in the subsequent claims file could be material to the period at issue in this appeal (i.e., between June 2, 2016, and November 9, 2018). Ms. Fleurima wants to obtain this evidence to evaluate whether she should move for remand under sentence six, prior to the court issuing a decision.

In response, citing Carroll v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 453 F. App’x 889 (11th Cir. 2011), the Commissioner argues the evidence in the subsequent claims file is immaterial to the period at issue here. However, in Caroll, the ALJ’s decision denying benefits covered a time period of August 9, 2002 to December 31, 2007. Id. at 891. The ALJ’s subsequent favorable decision was on January 12, 2010, with a disability onset of June 22, 2009. Id. at 892. This action is distinguishable from Carroll based on the nearly year-and-a-half period between the eligibility decisions in Carroll, as opposed to one day in this case.!

Accordingly, Ms. Fleurima’s Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. 20) is GRANTED. This action is stayed until September 18, 2020. The joint memorandum of law is due by October 18, 2020.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 20, 2020.

Aranda. Angew □□ Sassone_ AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE United States Magistrate Judge Indeed, the Carroll court specifically based its decision in part on the lengthy time betweenthe decisions. See Carrollv. Comm’ of Soc. Sec., 453 F. App’x 889, 892 (11th Cir. 2011)