Cousin v. Astrue

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION that defendant's motion to remand be granted and this action be REVERSED and REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bert W. Milling, Jr on 8/29/2011. (srr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ALMA FAYE COUSIN,

:

Plaintiff,

:

vs.

:
CIVIL ACTION 11-0071-M

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

:
:
:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3),
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security
ruling which denied claims for disability insurance benefits and
Supplemental Security Income (Docs. 1, 13).

The parties filed

written consent and this action has been referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and
order the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 (see Doc. 20).
Defendant has filed an Unopposed Motion and Memorandum for
Entry of Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with
Remand of the Cause to the Defendant (Doc. 17).

Defendant has

stated that Plaintiff’s attorney has no objection to the motion
(Doc. 17, p. 2).

Defendant states the following:

1

If the Court grants this motion, the Appeals
Council will direct the [Administrative Law
Judge (hereinafter ALJ)] to evaluate
Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity in
accordance with agency policy, including all
functional limitations supported by the
record, and cite specific evidence
supporting the residual functional capacity
assessment. The ALJ will seek
clarification, as needed, in evaluating
opinion evidence, particularly that of Dr.
Buckmaster, and will not accord any weight
to single decision-maker assessments. The
ALJ will obtain additional medical and
vocational expert testimony, as needed, to
clarify the effect of the claimant’s
functional limitations on her ability to
work.
(Doc. 17, pp. 1-2).

This is a tacit admission that Plaintiff's

application was not appropriately considered and that this
action should be reversed.

Without reviewing the substantive

evidence of record, this Court accepts Defendant's
acknowledgment of error.
It appears to the Court that the decision of the Secretary
should be reversed and remanded.

Such remand comes under

sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
501 U.S. 89 (1991).

See Melkonyan v. Sullivan,

For further procedures not inconsistent

with this report, see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).
Therefore, it is ORDERED, without objection from Plaintiff,
that Defendant’s Motion to Remand under sentence four be GRANTED
(Doc. 17) and that this action be REVERSED and REMANDED to the
2

Social Security Administration for further administrative
proceedings not inconsistent with the orders of this Court.
Judgment will be entered by separate order.
DONE this 29th day of August, 2011.

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE