Lewis v. Astrue (CONSENT)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 13 MOTION to Remand; the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC § 405(g), and for the reasons set forth in the Motion. Signed by Honorable Judge Wallace Capel, Jr on 8/28/2012. Copies mailed to SSA Chief Judge and Office of Hearings and Appeals.(wcl, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SAMUEL DALE LEWIS,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Civil Action No: 1:12-CV-00314-WC
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Commissioner of Social Security’s Unopposed Motion
to Remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Rule 58 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Def.’s Mot. To Remand (Doc. 13). The Commissioner states remand
is necessary to permit further consideration of Plaintiff’s claim of disability.
Commissioner further states that, upon this Court’s remand, the Appeals Council will direct
remand and will instruct the ALJ as follows:
(1) update the treatment evidence on the claimant’s medical condition
including any evidence submitted to the Appeals Council as well as Dr. Hart’s
report from the prior application;
(2) if warranted, obtain a consultative mental examination to clarify the
severity and any associated limitations from the claimant’s mental impairment;
(3) articulate how he has evaluated the severity of all medically determinable
mental impairments under the special technique;
(4) articulate how he has evaluated the credibility of the claimant’s subjective
complaints in light of the comments above;
(5) expressly evaluate the treating, examining, and non-examining medical
source opinions in the updated record and explain the reasons for the weight
he gives to this opinion evidence;
(6) further consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity on the updated
record, citing specific evidence in support of the assessed limitations;
(7) further consider whether the claimant has past relevant work he could
perform with the limitations established by the evidence;
(8) as appropriate, secure supplemental evidence from a vocational expert to
clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on the claimant’s occupational
(9) evaluate the effect, if any, of the claimant’s subsequent allowance finding
him disabled since October 16, 2010, under Title XVI.
Def.’s Mot. to Remand (Doc. 13) at 1-2.
Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes the district court to “enter, upon the
pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgement affirming, modifying, or reversing the
decision 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
for a rehearing if the court finds “either . . . the decision is not supported by substantial
evidence, or . . . the Commissioner or the ALJ incorrectly applied the law relevant to the
disability claim.” Jackson v. Chater, 99 F.3d 1086, 1092 (11th Cir. 1996); see Carril v.
Barnhart, 201 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1192 (N.D. Ala. 2002) (reversing the Commissioner’s
decision and remanding the case for further proceedings, where the Commissioner’s decision
was not supported by substantial evidence).
In this case, the Court finds reversal and remand necessary as Defendant concedes
reconsideration and proper application of governing law and further development of the
record is appropriate.
Accordingly, upon consideration of the Unopposed Motion (Doc. 13), it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 13) is GRANTED; 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 in the Motion.
A separate judgment will issue.
DONE this 28th day of August, 2012.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.
WALLACE CAPEL, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?