Harris v. Astrue (CONSENT)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that the Commissioner's 16 Motion to Reverse and Remand is GRANTED; 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 9/16/2013. (wcl, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MATTHEW W. HARRIS,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13cv53-WC
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion to Reverse
and 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. 16). 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 direct
remand and will instruct the ALJ “to further evaluate Plaintiff’s impairments and determine
whether the criteria of listing 12.05C are satisfied in accordance with the Commissioner’s
regulations. The ALJ will also be advised to obtain psychological expert testimony if
warranted.” Id. at 1.
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. Plaintiff has no objection to the remand.
Accordingly, upon consideration of the Motion (Doc. 16), it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion to Reverse and Remand (Doc. 16) 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
A separate judgment will issue.
DONE this 16th day of September, 2013.
/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?