Moyer v. McMahon
Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
Case No. 3:05-cv-0154-RRB
JO ANNE BARNHART,
Commissioner of Social
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Kathleen Moyer with a
Motion for Relief Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Docket
Plaintiff argues that the Court should enter judgment,
pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), reversing
the final decision of Jo Anne B. Barnhart, the Commissioner of
Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides in relevant
part: "The court shall have power to enter . . . a judgment
affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner
of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF - 1
Social Security ("Defendant"), with a remand for a rehearing, i.e.,
for further administrative proceedings.2
Defendant opposes and argues the Court must affirm the
decision denying benefits because it is supported by substantial
evidence and based upon correct legal standards.3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“[O]n review [, the Court] is not to try [the] matter de
novo, but to leave the findings of fact to the Commissioner and to
determine whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence in light of the record as a whole.”4
A thorough review of the pleadings reveals the findings
of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), through step-three of the
five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a
claimant is disabled,5 are supported by substantial evidence and
articulated in Plaintiff's Opening Brief (Docket No. 7), and
Clerk's Docket No. 7 at 1.
Clerk's Docket No. 8 at 10 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)).
Id. (citing Matney on Behalf of Matney v. Sullivan, 981
F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992))(emphasis added).
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520.
Batson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration,
359 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004).
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF - 2
Plaintiff's Reply Brief (Docket No. 10), the Court concludes there
are multiple defects in the ALJ's step-four findings.7
Consequently, the Court enters judgment under sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), REVERSES Defendant's final decision,
and REMANDS this matter for re-adjudication at step-four.8
ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2006.
/s/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
For example, the Court notes Plaintiff’s past work as an
inserter does not qualify as “past relevant work” because Plaintiff
did not perform her past work as an inserter within 15 years of the
ALJ’s decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1565(a)(“We do not usually
consider that work you did 15 years or more before the time we are
deciding whether you are disabled . . . .”).
20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(f)(2005)(step-four).
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RELIEF - 3
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?