Massengale v. Astrue (CONSENT)

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 15 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 10/25/12. Also mailed to SSA Office of Hearings & Appeals and Chief Judge SSA.(djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
JEROME MASSENGALE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12cv285-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. 15). The Commissioner states remand
is necessary to permit further consideration of Plaintiff’s claim of disability.

The

Commissioner further states that, upon this Court’s remand, the Appeals Council will
“remand the case back to an ALJ to hold a de novo hearing and issue a new decision
regarding Plaintiff’s eligibility for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income. The Appeals Council will instruct the ALJ to evaluate the objective medical
evidence of record, including the treatment notes describing use of a cane, and further
consider the claimant’s residual functional capacity on all the evidence of record.” Id. at 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 judgment 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. 15), it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 15) 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 25th day of October, 2012.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.
WALLACE CAPEL, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2