The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ricardo M. Urbina, United States District Judge
REMANDING THE CASE TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
This social security case comes before the court on a motion by the defendant, Jo Anne B. Barnhart ("the defendant"), the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), for relief from a prior court order directing SSA to turn over to the plaintiff, Lenn Gooden ("the plaintiff"), audiotapes from an SSA administrative hearing addressing the plaintiff's grievance for social security benefits and payments. The defendant claims that the audiotapes have been lost and therefore compliance with the court's order is impossible. Also before the court is the plaintiff's request that the cause be remanded to SSA for a rehearing. The central issue facing the court is how best to proceed given these somewhat unusual circumstances. After consideration of the parties' submissions and the relevant law, the court will grant the plaintiff's request to remand the case to SSA to conduct a de novo hearing that addresses the plaintiff's grievance in a manner consistent with SSA's own policies.
This case has a somewhat long and unusual factual background. The story begins in March 1988, when the plaintiff applied for disability benefits from SSA. See Compl. at 1. After holding an administrative hearing, SSA denied the plaintiff's requested benefits. See id. The plaintiff appealed SSA's decision in district court, whereby the case was assigned to the calendar of Judge Joyce H. Green in November 1988. See id. That appeal resulted in a reversal and remand to SSA. See id. In 1989, on remand, SSA granted the plaintiff benefits. *fn1 In 1996, after having received benefits for seven years, SSA determined that the plaintiff's condition had "improved" and, thus, terminated his benefits. See id. The ensuing administrative and legal battle regarding termination of the plaintiff's disability benefits is the subject of the dispute currently before the court.
By way of procedural history in the case, after having exhausted his administrative remedies with SSA, the plaintiff again sought relief in district court by filing an 11-count complaint on December 28, 2000. The matter was again assigned to Judge Green. At a status hearing held on May 8, 2001, the parties apparently indicated to Judge Green that there were some disputes as to the accuracy of the administrative record, but once those were resolved, the matter could be decided on the pleadings. Judge Green issued an order on May 9, 2001 ("May 9th Order") directing SSA to turn over the audiotapes of the hearings so that the court could resolve discrepancies in the administrative record. See May 9th Order. On June 7, 2001, the case was transferred to this member of the court and on June 29, 2001, SSA filed a motion seeking relief from the May 9th order on account that the requested audiotapes were lost. See Def.'s Mot. for Relief at 1. The plaintiff opposed this motion, but failed to request or suggest an alternative remedy to the court. See Pl.'s Opp'n at 3. On October 2, 2001, the court issued an order ("October 2nd Order") directing the parties to provide further briefing on the various possibilities of relief that the court could grant as a result of the lost audiotapes. See October 2nd Order.
The court now turns to the defendant's motion for relief from the court's May 9th order. For the reasons that follow, the court determines that, in the interest of fairness, the case be remanded to SSA for a new hearing that addresses the plaintiff's grievance.
The question that the court must address is how to proceed given that SSA is unable to locate the audiotapes of the plaintiff's subject administrative proceeding. Despite this loss, SSA has provided the plaintiff with a written transcript of that proceeding. See Def.'s Mem. at 1. The plaintiff, however, contests the accuracy of the transcript and contends that there is no way to confirm or challenge the accuracy of the written transcript without the original audiotapes. See Pl.'s Resp. at 1. He urges that a decision of the case on its merits without any attempt to resolve the issue of the transcript's accuracy would be unfairly prejudicial to the plaintiff, who, through no fault of his own, has been unable to adequately correct or ...