Scroggins v. Astrue (CONSENT)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the Commissioner's 12 Motion to Remand 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 Defendant's 13 Brief in Support of its Motion to Remand. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 10/15/2008. (cb, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION E S T E L L A SCROGGINS, 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. 3:08cv651-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. #12). The Commissioner states remand is necessary to permit further consideration of Plaintiff's claim of disability. The Commissioner further s ta te s that, upon this Court's remand, the Appeals Council will remand this matter to the ALJ t o "reconsider" evidence of "Plaintiff's mental impairments and, if necessary, obtain s u p p le m e n ta l evidence from a vocational expert." Def.'s Brief in Support of Mot. Remand (D o c . #13 at 1). This Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to show cause why the m o tio n to remand should not be granted. Order (Doc. #14). Because Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Court's Order, the Court presumes Plaintiff has no objection to D e f e n d a n t's 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). In this case, the Commissioner requests remand for reconsideration of evidence of P la in tif f 's mental impairments, as well as the possible procuring of supplemental evidence f ro m a vocational expert. The Court finds reversal and remand necessary here, as Defendant c o n c ed e s reconsideration and proper application of governing law and further development o f the record is appropriate. U p o n consideration of the Motion (Doc. #12) and Plaintiff's failure to object thereto, it is O R D E R E D that the Commissioner's Motion to Remand (Doc. #12) is GRANTED; th e decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings p u rsua n t to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and for the reasons set forth in Defendant's B rief in Support of its Motion to Remand (Doc. #13). A separate judgment will issue.
D O N E this 15th 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?