Gholston v. Berryhill (CONSENT)

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that the Commissioner's Motion (Doc. 18 ) 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). Signed by Honorable Judge Wallace Capel, Jr on 10/17/2018. (kh, )

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:18-cv-370-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. 18). In the motion, the Acting Commissioner states remand is necessary
so that the Agency may “evaluate all opinion evidence of record including opinions from
other federal agencies; evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective statements and all lay testimony
regarding Plaintiff’s pain and other symptoms in accordance with the regulations and
Social Security Ruling 16-3p; re-assess Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity; proceed
through the sequential evaluation process as needed and appropriate based on the updated
record; take any further action to complete the administrative record; and issue a new
decision.” Doc. 18 at 2.
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. See Doc. 18 at 1.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion (Doc. 18) 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 17th day of October, 2018.

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

2