Coaxum v. Colvin

Filing 22

ORDER granting 19 Motion to Remand to Agency; the Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for a rehearing under sentence four of 405(g). Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine P. Nelson on 1/27/2017. (srr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SIDNEY R. COAXUM,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,1
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-00262-N

ORDER
Plaintiff Sidney R. Coaxum has brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g)
and 1383(c)(3) seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Defendant
Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) dated April 12, 2016, denying
his applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”)
under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401, et seq., and for
supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 1381, et seq. With the consent of the parties, the Court has designated the
undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of
judgment in this civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 73, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 73. (See Docs. 20, 21).
In response to Coaxum’s brief and fact Sheet (Doc. 18) listing the specific
errors upon which he seeks reversal of the Commissioner’s decision, the
On notice of the Commissioner (see Doc. 19 at 1 n.1), Nancy A. Berryhill is
substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin as the Acting Commissioner of Social Security
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

1

Commissioner filed a motion to remand Coaxum’s case for rehearing (Doc. 19) under
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The [district ]court shall have power 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.”),2 representing that Coaxum does not oppose
the motion.3
Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that the Commissioner’s unopposed
motion to remand (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s April 12, 2016 final
decision denying Coaxum a period of disability, DIB benefits, and SSI benefits is
REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED for a rehearing under sentence four of
§ 405(g). Securing a “sentence four” remand makes Coaxum a prevailing party for
purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, see Shalala v.
Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993), and terminates this Court’s jurisdiction over this
cause.
In the event Coaxum is awarded Social Security benefits on the subject
applications following this remand, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
See also 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) (“The final determination of the Commissioner of Social
Security after a hearing [for SSI benefits] shall be subject to judicial review as provided in
section 405(g) of this title to the same extent as the Commissioner's final determinations
under section 405 of this title.”).

2

Sentence six of § 405(g) provides that “[t]he court may, on motion of the Commissioner of
Social Security made for good cause shown before the Commissioner files the
Commissioner’s answer, remand the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further
action by the Commissioner of Social Security…” However, the Commissioner filed her
answer (Doc. 12) prior to requesting remand, and her motion does not set forth “good cause,”
other than that Coaxum does not oppose remand.

3

54(d)(2)(B) the Court hereby grants Coaxum’s counsel an extension of time in which
to file a motion for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (applicable to SSI claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2)(A)) until thirty days after the date of receipt of a notice of award
of benefits from the SSA.4 Consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 422.210(c), “the date of
receipt of notice … shall be presumed to be 5 days after the date of such notice,
unless there is a reasonable showing to the contrary.”

If multiple award notices are

issued, the time for filing a § 406(b) fee motion shall run from the date of receipt of
the latest-dated notice.
Final judgment shall issue separately in accordance with this Order and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
DONE and ORDERED this the 27th day of January 2017.
/s/ Katherine P. Nelson
KATHERINE P. NELSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

See Bergen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“Fed.
R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2) applies to a § 406(b) attorney's fee claim.”); Blitch v. Astrue, 261 F. App'x
241, 242 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished) (“In Bergen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.,
454 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006), we suggested the best practice for avoiding confusion about
the integration of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) into the procedural framework of a fee award
under 42 U.S.C. § 406 is for a plaintiff to request and the district court to include in the
remand judgment a statement that attorneys fees may be applied for within a specified time
after the determination of the plaintiff's past due benefits by the Commission. 454 F.3d at
1278 n.2.”).

4