Key v. Astrue (CONSENT)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERED that: (1) The 24 Motion to Remand is GRANTED; (2) The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and for the reasons set forth i n Defendants 25 Brief in Support of its Motion to Remand; and (3) Upon receiving notice of any entitlement to past-due benefits, Plaintiff have sixty days in which to seek attorney's fees as further set out. A separate judgment will issue. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 12/15/2008. (cb, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA S O U T H E R N DIVISION N A N C Y KEY, P la in tif f , v. M IC H A E L J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, D e f e n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C IV IL ACTION NO. 1:08cv217-WC
M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER P e n d in g before the Court is the Commissioner of Social Security's Motion to Remand p u rsua n t to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (F R C P ) 58. Def.'s Mot. Remand (Doc. #24). The Commissioner states remand is necessary f o r further consideration in light of errors by the Administrative Law Judge in adjudicating P lain tiff 's claim of disability. The Commissioner further indicates that, upon this Court's re m a n d , the Appeals Council will remand this matter to the ALJ "who will be instructed to re e v a lu a te the evidence as it pertains to Plaintiff's [residual functional capacity] and, if w a rra n te d , obtain evidence from a vocational expert." (Doc. #25 at 2) T h is Court entered an Order (Doc. #26) directing Plaintiff to show cause why the m o tio n to remand should not be granted. Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #27) on December 9 , 2008, voicing no objection to the Motion to Remand. Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes the district court to "enter, upon the p le a d in g s and transcript of the record, a judgement affirming, modifying, or reversing the
d e c is io n of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court may remand a case to the Commissioner
f o r a rehearing if the court finds "either . . . the decision is not supported by substantial e v i d en c e , or . . . the Commissioner or the ALJ incorrectly applied the law relevant to the d is a b ility claim." Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1092 (11th Cir. 1996); see Carril v. B a r n h a r t, 201 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1192 (N.D. Ala. 2002) (reversing the Commissioner's d e c is io n and remanding the case for further proceedings, where the Commissioner's decision w as not supported by substantial evidence). I n this case, the Commissioner acknowledges the ALJ failed to properly reconcile e v id e n c e of Plaintiff's exertional and non-exertional limitations with his ultimate d e te rm in a tio n respecting her residual functional capacity, but that this error was not re c o g n iz e d by the Commissioner until the matter reached briefing in this Court. Def. Mem. S u p p . Rem. (Doc. #25) at 2. The Court finds reversal and remand necessary here, as D e f en d a n t concedes proper application of governing law and possible further development o f the record through the testimony of a vocational expert is required. U p o n consideration of the Motion (Doc. #24) and Plaintiff's response (Doc. #27), it is O R D E R E D that: 1. 2. The Commissioner's Motion to Remand (Doc. #24) is GRANTED. T h e decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for
f u rth e r proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and for th e reasons set forth in Defendant's Brief in Support of its Motion to Remand (D o c. #24, #25). 3. U p o n receiving notice of any entitlement to past-due benefits, Plaintiff shall h a v e sixty (60) days in which to seek attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 4 0 6 (b).1 A separate judgment will issue. D O N E this 15th day of December, 2008.
/ s / Wallace Capel, Jr. W A L L A C E CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
See Blitch v. Astrue, 261 Fed. Appx. 241, 242 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008). 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?