Bleich v. Colvin

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the Commissioner's Motion (Doc. 14 ) is GRANTED; for the reasons set forth in the Motion, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Honorable Judge Wallace Capel, Jr on February 19, 2015. (scn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
PEGGY M. BLEICH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:14-cv-908-WC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s Motion
for Entry of Judgment under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Remand to the
Defendant. (Doc. 14). 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 Agency will instruct the ALJ to “1) further evaluate the
opinion of Dr. Al Vester; 2) further evaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity; 3)
further evaluate the credibility of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints; and 4) obtain
supplemental testimony from a vocational expert.” 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).
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 in order. Plaintiff filed no objection or response to the Motion for remand
within the time set by the court for filing any objection or response.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion (Doc. 14) is GRANTED; for the
reasons set forth in the Motion, the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and
REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
A separate judgment will issue.
Done this 19th day of February, 2015.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.
WALLACE CAPEL, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE