Scroggins v. Astrue (CONSENT)

Filing 15

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.

2

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

3