Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_22-cv-00948/USCOURTS-ared-4_22-cv-00948-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

TONYA RENEE DILL PLAINTIFF 

 

v. Case No. 4:22-CV-00948-LPR 

 

Commissioner, Social Security 

Administration DEFENDANT 

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Recommended Disposition (RD) submitted by United States 

Magistrate Judge Edie R. Ervin and the Plaintiff’s Objections.1 After a de novo review of the RD, 

along with careful consideration of the objections and the case record, the Court concludes that the 

RD should be, and hereby is, approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court’s findings and 

conclusions in all respects.2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Commissioner’s decision is AFFIRMED, and 

judgment will be entered for the Commissioner in this case. 

1

 Docs. 18 & 19. The Court has considered Plaintiff’s Objections even though they were filed several weeks late. But 

the Court wishes to address the following statements made by Plaintiff’s Counsel in the late Objections: 

Plaintiff informs counsel that she contacted the Court ex parte and is requesting that these written 

objections be filed and there were indications by the Court that the pleading would be accepted. 

Accordingly, at the direction of the party, these written objections are being filed 

contemporaneously with that client contact, but belated, and counsel asks the Court’s discretion in 

allowing these comments without formal motion. 

Pl.’s Objections (Doc. 19) at 1. Plaintiff’s Counsel should exercise caution before relying on a client’s representations 

about what the Court has “indicated” it will do, and filing documents she knows to be out-of-time “at the direction” 

of her client. The better course of action, certainly, would have been for Plaintiff’s Counsel to contact the Court 

herself. Had she done so in this instance, she would have learned that the Court (i.e., court staff) had said nothing 

close to what Plaintiff represented. The Court will not belabor the point, however, because the Objections fail to sway 

the outcome of this case in any event. 

2

 The Objections spend a lot of time on the ALJ’s alleged failure to perform the PRT at Step Two. Pl.’s Objections 

(Doc. 19) at 2–4, 7–9. But the ALJ specifically documented his application of the technique and explained that it was 

used at Steps Two and Three to rate the severity of Plaintiff’s mental impairments. See Admin. Tr. (Doc. 12) at 28. 

Case 4:22-cv-00948-LPR Document 20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 2
2 

DATED this 5th day of January 2024. 

 ________________________________

 LEE P. RUDOFSKY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:22-cv-00948-LPR Document 20 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 2