United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
NOTICE AND ORDER
WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Jesse Joseph Tullier (“Plaintiff”) brought this
action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of
the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (the “Commissioner”) denying his
application for disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”). Plaintiff has filed a Memorandum in
Support of Appeal and the Commissioner has filed an
June 5, 2017 unfavorable decision of the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”), Plaintiff's alleged disability
onset date is stated to be October 1, 2013. Likewise,
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Appeal asserts that
Plaintiff's “applied for disability insurance
benefits on July 7, 2015, based on an alleged onset date of
October 1, 2013.” However, Plaintiff's Application
Summary for Disability Insurance Benefits reflects the
alleged disability onset date as July 6, 2015. There is no
indication in the administrative record that the alleged
disability onset date was subsequently amended to October 1,
2013. Accordingly, it appears that the ALJ's
June 5, 2017 decision was based on the incorrect premise that
Plaintiff alleged he was disabled twenty-one months prior to
Plaintiff's actual alleged disability onset date.
error in the alleged onset date of disability “is not
itself a basis for remand unless the claimant can show that
it caused [claimant] prejudice.” Although neither
party's briefing addresses whether the error in alleged
onset date was prejudicial, the Court is concerned that
reliance on medical records evidencing Plaintiff's
condition prior to the actual alleged onset date may have
affected the weight assigned to the opinions of
Plaintiff's treating physicians and the evaluation of
Plaintiff's residual functional capacity. Where utilization
of a “grossly incorrect onset date” by an ALJ
taints consideration of a Plaintiff's disability claim,
remand may be appropriate.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days
of this Notice and Order, each party shall separately file a
Supplemental Memorandum, limited to five (5) pages each,
addressing: (1) which date (October 1, 2013 or July 6, 2015)
should be considered the alleged disability onset date; and
(2) in the event the ALJ's June 5, 2017 Decision applied
the wrong alleged onset date, whether the error was
prejudicial. Alternatively, in the event the parties agree
that prejudicial error occurred with respect to the ALJ's
use of October 1, 2013 as the alleged disability onset date,
the parties shall file a Joint Motion to Remand within
twenty-one (21) days of this Notice and Order.
 The parties have consented to proceed
before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),
R. Doc. 7, and on November 27, 2018, an Order of Reference
was issued referring this matter “for the conduct of
all further proceedings and the entry of
judgment….” R. Doc. 12.
 R. Doc. 11.
 R. Doc. 14.
 AR p. 15. References to documents
filed in this case are designated by “(R. Doc. [docket
entry number(s)] p. [page number(s)].” References to
the record of administrative proceedings filed in this case
are designated by “(AR [page number(s)].”
 R. Doc. 11, p. 1. A Disability
Determination Explanation form also references October 1,
2013 as the alleged onset date. AR p. 67.
 AR p. 156.
 The Commissioner recognizes but does
not provide any explanation regarding the discrepancy. R.
Doc. 14, p. 2, n. 2 (“October 1, 2013 is the date
referenced by the ALJ as the alleged onset date of the
plaintiff. However, the transcript reflects that the ...