Binion v. Astrue(CONSENT)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying the Commissioner's 25 MOTION to Supplement the Transcript; that the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for the reasons set forth in this Order and adduced at the hearing described herein. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 10/20/2008. (cc, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION L U C Y BINION, 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. 2:07cv513-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 A m e n d /S u p p le m e n t the Transcript (Doc. #25) of administrative proceedings that was filed in this Court on July 15, 2008. The Motion seeks to replace pages 206-216 of the transcript, w h ich appear to be an Application for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") by Robert R e e se Binion, with an equivalent number of blank, redacted pages. As grounds for the
M o tio n , the Commissioner asserts the SSI application included in the transcript pertains to a claimant other than Plaintiff - by all appearances, her husband - and therefore must be re d a cte d from the record. Although both the Commissioner and the Administrative Law J u d g e ("ALJ") state that Plaintiff has filed her own SSI application, see Def.'s Mem. in Supp. o f Comm. Dec. (Doc. #23) at 1, 2 & Transcript (Doc. #24) at 12, the Commissioner has not p ro v id e d the Court with a copy of such application. Out of concern for the completeness of the record and, hence, the legality of the ad m inistrat iv e review prior to these proceedings, the Court held a hearing on Defendant's
M o tio n on October 20, 2008. Counsel for the Commissioner appeared at this hearing, as did P la in t if f , who is pro se. At the hearing, counsel for the Commissioner conveyed to the Court th a t a SSI application on behalf of Plaintiff could not be found, that the Commissioner could n o t definitively state whether such an application had ever been filed, and that the C o m m is s io n e r could not explain why the ALJ, and subsequently counsel for the C o m m issio n er, asserted that such an application had been submitted by Plaintiff. The Court sta ted its belief that, absent the application, the record is incomplete and the matter should b e remanded to permit appropriate review of the complete record, as well as further d e v e lo p m e n t, if necessary. The Commissioner agreed that the record appeared incomplete a n d neither the Commissioner nor Plaintiff voiced any objection to the remand contemplated b y the Court. S e n te n c e 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 id e n 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). In this case, it is unclear to this Court, and apparently the Commissioner as well, w h e th e r Plaintiff has previously filed an SSI application and, if so, what was the content of th e application. Likewise, it is unclear whether the ALJ may have erroneously considered the SSI application of Robert Reese Binion in assessing the disability claims of Plaintiff. In a n y event, without the ability to review Plaintiff's SSI application, the Court cannot conclude th a t the ALJ's decision, which references such an application, is supported by substantial e v id e n c e. Thus, the Court finds reversal and remand necessary, as the record appears either f u n d a m e n ta lly incorrect or incomplete. U p o n consideration of the Defendant's Motion (Doc. #25) and the statements of the p a rties at the hearing on the Motion, it is O R D E R E D that the Commissioner's Motion to Supplement the Transcript (Doc. #25) is DENIED; and that the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED f o r further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for the reasons set f o rth in this Order and adduced at the hearing described herein. A separate judgment will issue. D O N E this 20th day of October, 2008. / s / Wallace Capel, Jr. W A L L A C E CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D 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?