Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00606/USCOURTS-azd-3_06-cv-00606-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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

CECILIA TROPP, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-606-PHX-MHM

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of Defendant Michael J. Astrue’s Motion to Reopen File for

Further Proceedings. (Doc. 55). This case is a social security appeal that was originally filed

in this Court on February 28, 2006. (Doc. 1). On June 30, 2007, this Court issued an Order

denying Plaintiff’s appeal from her denial of benefits. (Doc. 36). Following the Court’s

decision, Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 38). On January

30, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued an Order remanding the case without issuing judgment,

and directing that, “On remand, the Social Security Administration Appeals Council should

obtain Tropp’s 2005 and 2008 application files and reevaluate its unfavorable 2005 decision

in light of its favorable 2008 decision.” (Doc. 50). According to Defendant, those

proceedings occurred on April 1, 2010, and the ALJ issued a decision on May 12, 2010,

finding that Plaintiff was not disabled under sections 216(i) and 223(d) of the Social Security

Act through March 22, 2005.

Case 3:06-cv-00606-JAT Document 56 Filed 02/18/11 Page 1 of 2
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

- 2 -

In light of the ALJ’s decision, in his instant motion, Defendant requests that this Court

reopen the case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which states that following remand the

Commissioner “shall file with the Court any such additional or modified findings of fact and

decision, and a transcript of the additional record and testimony upon which his action in

modifying or affirming was based.” Defendant states that it will comply with this directive

and file a transcript of the administrative record as soon as the case is reopened for further

proceedings. Noting that Plaintiff has not responded and finding good cause therein, the

Court will grant Defendant’s motion and reopen the case.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant Michael J. Astrue's Motion to

Reopen File for Further Proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 55).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case.

DATED this 16th day of February, 2011.

Case 3:06-cv-00606-JAT Document 56 Filed 02/18/11 Page 2 of 2