Reif v. Astrue

Filing 20

ORDER granting 19 Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Remand. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the decision to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/16/12.(LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social)
)
Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
Paul Stewart Reif,

No. CV-11-1917-PHX-GMS
ORDER

16
17
18

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Remand for Further
Proceedings (Doc. 19). For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion is granted.

19

On March 4, 2010, Administrative Law Judge John Wojciechowski determined that

20

Plaintiff Paul Reif was not entitled to disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social

21

Security Act. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff appealed the ALJ decision to the Social Security

22

Administration Appeals Council. (See Doc. 1 at 2). On August 3, 2011, the Appeals Council

23

denied Plaintiff’s request for review of the ALJ decision and adopted the decision as the final

24

decision of Defendant Michael J. Astrue, the Commissioner of the Social Security

25

Administration. (See id.). On September 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the instant

26

action, seeking review of Defendant’s decision. (Doc. 1).

27

On April 6, 2012, Defendant filed a motion to remand this action for further

28

administrative proceedings. (Doc. 19). Defendant has labeled his motion “Defendant’s

1

Unopposed Motion for Remand for Further Proceedings” and states that he “obtained e-mail

2

consent to this motion on April 6, 2012” from Plaintiff’s counsel. (Doc. 19 at 1–2) (emphasis

3

added). The motion states that the Appeals Council “has further reviewed Plaintiff’s case and

4

determined that a remand for further proceedings is appropriate.” (Doc. 19 at 1). The motion

5

also states that should the Court remand this action, the Appeals Council will vacate the

6

ALJ’s decision and remand the matter to the ALJ for a de novo hearing and new decision,

7

directing the ALJ to reevaluate his decision in light of the new evidence submitted at the

8

Appeals Council level. (Id. at 2).

9

Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides that the Court may reverse decisions of

10

the Commissioner and at the same time “remand[ ] the cause for a rehearing.” Given that

11

Plaintiff’s counsel has consented to Defendant’s motion, the Court grants the motion. A

12

“sentence-four” remand is treated as a final judgment, and therefore upon remand the Court

13

must, as requested by Defendant, enter judgment against him. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509

14

U.S. 292, 302–303 (1993) (holding that a sentence-four remand is a “final judgment” and that

15

therefore “a ‘separate document’ of judgment should [be] entered” upon such remand).

16
17

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Remand
for Further Proceedings (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED reversing the Commissioner’s decision and

19

remanding the decision to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings as set

20

out above.

21

DATED this 16th day of April, 2012.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-