Farrow v. Berryhill (CONSENT)

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 17 MOTION to Remand ; the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 USC 405(g). Signed by Honorable Judge Wallace Capel, Jr on 8/30/17. Copy also mailed to SSA Chief Judge and SSA Office of Hearings and Appeals.(djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
ROBERT EUGENE FARROW,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:17-cv-079-WC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s
Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with
Reversal and Remand of the Cause to the Defendant. (Doc. 17). In her supporting
Memorandum (Doc. 18), the Acting Commissioner states remand is necessary to permit
further consideration of Plaintiff’s claim of disability.

In particular, the Acting

Commissioner states that, upon this court’s remand, the Agency will “further consider
Plaintiff’s vision impairment, and, if necessary, obtain vocational expert testimony to
determine the extent to which the impairment impact[s] his ability to work.” Def.’s Mem.
(Doc. 18) 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 further development of the record is in order. Furthermore, Plaintiff
does not oppose the motion.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion (Doc. 17) is GRANTED; for the
reasons set forth in the Motion and in this Order, 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 30th day of August, 2017.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2