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-
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?