Williams v. Astrue
ORDER ADOPTING 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Dft's 17 Unopposed MOTION to Remand is GRANTED as set out, & this action is REMANDED to the SSA pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g) as set out. Signed by Chief Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 1/27/09. (tot)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ALEXIA WILLIAMS o/b/o JARVIS T. WILLIAMS Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. * * * * * * Civil Action 08-00428-CG-B * * * * * * ORDER After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated January 6, 2009 is hereby ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, for good cause shown, it is ORDERED that Defendant's unopposed Motion and Memorandum for Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Remand of the Cause to the Defendant (Doc. 17) be and hereby is GRANTED, and that this action is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) so that the Appeals Council will ". . .remand this case to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who will be directed to (1) properly consider whether Plaintiff's asthmatic condition meets of equals the requirements of Listings 103.02 and 103.03; (2) update by recontacting treating sources; (3) receive testimony from a medical expert; and (4) obtain a consultative examination, if warranted." (Id. at 1).
This remand, pursuant to sentence four of Section 405(g), makes Plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993). DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of January, 2009. /s/ Callie V. S. Granade CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?