Parsons v. Social Security Administration
ORDER granting 14 Motion to Remand. The Commissioner's prior decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further administrative proceedings and issuance of a new decision. This is a sentence four remand. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 07/11/2014. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NO. 4:14CV00019 JTR
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Social Security Administration
Plaintiff seeks judicial review of the administrative denial of his claim for
Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Doc. #2. The
Commissioner has filed an Unopposed Motion to Remand, asserting that the case
should be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings, pursuant to
the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. #14. The Motion states Plaintiff’s
counsel was contacted and has no objection to the requested remand. Id. at 1.
In the Motion, the Commissioner seeks voluntary remand for the
Administrative Law Judge to hold a supplemental hearing and issue a new decision.
Specifically, the Commissioner requests remand for the ALJ: (1) to obtain
supplemental vocational evidence; and (2) before relying on any vocational expert
evidence, to identify and resolve any conflicts between the expert’s evidence and
information in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, as required by Social Security
Ruling 00-4p. Under the circumstances, remand is appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Commissioner’s Unopposed
Motion to Remand, Doc. #14, is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s prior decision is
REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for further administrative proceedings
and issuance of a new decision. This is a “sentence four” remand within the meaning
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991).
DATED this 11th day of July, 2014.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?