Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00077/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00077-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maryann G. Cruz, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-0077-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Before us is defendant Commissioner of Social Security Administration’s motion for

reconsideration (doc. 20), and memorandum in support (doc. 21), asking us to reconsider our

order dated July 5, 2012, in which we vacated our order remanding the case to the

Commissioner for further proceedings, reversed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits, and

remanded for an award of benefits for the closed period from July 13, 2006 to June 30, 2009.

The Commissioner asks us to reconsider that order, arguing that we are without

authority to award benefits because there has been no finding that plaintiff has met the

statutory criteria for disability during the closed period. We disagree. 

Without offering an explanation, and after months of delay, the Commissioner failed

to comply, on two occasions, with our express orders to file supplemental findings and

conclusions. The government has ignored its promise to reconsider its original benefits

decision, has contemptuously ignored court orders, and is now in default. As we held in our

Case 2:11-cv-00077-FJM Document 22 Filed 07/23/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

As a practical matter we note that all that is at stake here is a closed 3-year period of

benefits. In a separate application for benefits, plaintiff was found to be disabled as of July

1, 2009, and continuing. 

- 2 -

July 5, 2012 order, the Commissioner’s failure to comply with court orders is properly

construed as a confession of error with regard to its decision denying benefits. We may deem

as established claims contained in the complaint, and an award of benefits is appropriate.1

A district court has statutory authority to order the Commissioner to submit

memoranda of law, supplement the record, and submit supplemental findings. 42 U.S.C. §

405(g). A court also has an “inherent power” necessarily vested in courts “to manage [its]

own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Chambers v.

NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2132-33 (1991). The Commissioner, like

any other litigant, has a duty to timely defend cases, and obey court orders. To allow a

litigant, especially an agency of the federal government, to blatantly ignore an order of the

court would impair the court’s fundamental ability to function. 

While the government’s most recent offer of an August 1 hearing has superficial

appeal, Memorandum at 5, the government’s position is so pernicious that we cannot honor

it. Under the government’s approach, it could repeatedly stonewall, delay, and default and

the court would be powerless to do anything. This is not how the system works. We have

an obligation to insure that litigation filed in this court proceeds in an orderly fashion and that

the private litigant obtains an expeditious adjudication of her legal rights. Plaintiff filed this

action for judicial review of an agency decision. The agency is now obligated to comply

with the rules and orders of this court. Its contemptuous failure to meet its obligations

properly results in a finding of confession of error and default. 

Plaintiff’s benefits claim was originally denied by an administrative law judge almost

4 years ago. It took the Appeals Council 2 years just to deny review. We granted the

Commissioner’s request to remand the case for further proceedings a year ago, and still the

Commissioner has taken no action whatsoever, in disregard of court orders that it do so. This

case is but one example of the unacceptable delay inherent in the Social Security

Case 2:11-cv-00077-FJM Document 22 Filed 07/23/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Administration’s dismal track record in resolving claims. In 2011, 3.3 million people applied

for disability benefits. In September of that year, a record 771,318 were waiting to have their

cases heard on appeal by administrative law judges. Damian Paletta, Growing Case Backlog

Leaves the Terminally Ill Waiting, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 28, 2011,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204296804577121401602777764.html.

This court is unwilling to contribute to that delay.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the motion for reconsideration (doc. 20).

DATED this 23rd day of July, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00077-FJM Document 22 Filed 07/23/12 Page 3 of 3