LaRocca v. Colvin

Filing 20

ORDER granting 19 Commissioner's Unopposed Motion to Remand. The Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits is hereby REVERSED and this Social Security appeal is REMANDED. The Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 12/19/13.(LSP)

Download PDF
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 James M. Larocca, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner) of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ) No. CV-13-1269-PHX-LOA ORDER 15 On December 17, 2013, the Commissioner filed an Unopposed Motion to Remand, 16 requesting the Court to remand this Social Security appeal for further administrative 17 proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because the Appeals Council 18 “has further reviewed Plaintiff’s case and determined that remand for further proceedings is 19 warranted.” (Doc. 19) All parties have consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 11) 21 The Commissioner’s remand motion indicates that upon remand, “[t]he Appeals 22 Council will remand the matter back to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for further 23 evaluation of the record and a new decision.” (Id. at 1) Specifically, the Appeals Council 24 will direct the ALJ to: 1) give further consideration to the medical opinions of record, 25 including the opinions of Dr. Masland, and articulate what weight is given to each; 2) 26 reevaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity assessment; and 3) reassess steps four and 27 five with the assistance of a vocational expert, if necessary. (Id. at 1-2) The motion represents 28 Plaintiff does not oppose this motion. (Id. at 2) The Commissioner also requests the Court 1 to “[s]pecify in its order that the case is being remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 2 U.S.C. § 405(g), and direct the clerk to enter a judgment in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 58, consistent with the decision in Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-302 (1993).” (Id.) 4 There being no objection and good cause appearing, 5 IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion to Remand, doc. 19, 6 is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for disability 7 insurance benefits is hereby REVERSED and this Social Security appeal is REMANDED, 8 pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings as set 9 forth herein. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter a 11 separate judgment in accordance with Rule 58(a) and (d), Fed.R.Civ.P., consistent with the 12 decision in Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296-302 (1993). See Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 13 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A sentence four remand becomes a final judgment, for 14 purposes of attorneys’ fees claims brought pursuant to the EAJA, . . . upon expiration of the 15 time for appeal. . . A plaintiff who obtains a sentence four remand is considered a prevailing 16 party for purposes of attorneys’ fees. . .This is so even when the case has been remanded for 17 further administrative action.”) (citations omitted). 18 Dated this 19th day of December, 2013. 19 20 21 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?