Davis v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Ott on 1/8/2014. (PSM)

Download PDF
FILED 2014 Jan-08 PM 01:51 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION CECIL M. DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 5:13-cv-1149-JEO MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the court on Defendant’s unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment Under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) and Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Remand of the Cause to the Defendant (doc. 14), filed January 8, 2014. There being no opposition, the motion is due to be granted. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) and sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), this court has the power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing.1 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). Accordingly, this case is due to be remanded to the Commissioner in order for the ALJ to further consider Plaintiff’s mental impairments and residual functional capacity in light of the opinion evidence provided by Dr. Rogers; to obtain, if necessary, evidence from a psychological medical expert of a vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed limitations on Plaintiff’s 1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 9). occupational base; and for any other proceedings that may be necessary for the proper disposition of this matter. The court will enter a separate judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. DONE this 8th day of January, 2014. ___________________________ JOHN E. OTT Chief United 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?