Goldstein v. Colvin
Filing
34
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting 23 defendant's motion to remand; denying 25 , 31 plaintiff's motions for reversal order and judgment. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
STEVEN M. GOLDSTEIN,
12
Case No. 5:13-cv-03504 HRL
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
15
Defendant.
16
17
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR REMAND AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS
FOR REVERSAL ORDER AND
JUDGMENT
[Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 25, 31]
Defendant moves for remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) sentence six, citing the
18
agency’s inability to locate the record of the administrative proceedings re plaintiff’s claim for
19
benefits. Defendant requests an opportunity to reconstruct the record; or, if the record cannot be
20
reconstructed, then defendant says she will remand the matter to an administrative law judge to
21
reconstruct the record, hold a new hearing, and issue a decision. Plaintiff opposes the motion and
22
separately moves for judgment on the merits, arguing that defendant did not answer his complaint.
23
Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers, 1 the court grants defendant’s motion
24
and denies plaintiff’s motions.
25
26
Given the pendency of defendant’s request for remand, it would have made no sense for
defendant to proceed to join the issue and file an answer. Plaintiff’s motions for a reversal order
27
1
28
Plaintiff filed an unauthorized sur-reply with respect to defendant’s remand motion. The court
nevertheless has fully considered all of plaintiff’s filings.
1
2
and judgment are denied.
Plaintiff contends that remand is not warranted because defendant has cited no new
3
evidence. He is, however, conflating the requirements for the two different types of remand
4
authorized by § 405(g) sentence six. Sentence six remands may be ordered in two situations:
5
“where the Secretary requests a remand before answering the complaint, or where new, material
6
evidence is adduced that was for good cause not presented before the agency.” Shalala v.
7
Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 n.2, 113 S. Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993); see also Melkonyan v.
8
Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 100 & n.2, 111 S. Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991) (same); Akopyan v.
9
Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (same). Only the first type of sentence six remand is
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
at issue here.
Moreover, this court finds good cause for defendant’s request. Congress clearly has stated
12
that good cause for remand may be found where difficulties, such as an inaudible hearing tape or
13
lost files, arise. See H.R.Rep. No. 96-944, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1980). Plaintiff’s arguments
14
about defendant’s duty to compile an administrative record do not persuade this court otherwise
15
and do not subvert or invalidate Congress’ clearly stated intent. While plaintiff argues that
16
defendant provided meaningful review of his claims at the administrative level, meaningful review
17
by this court is not possible without a proper record.
18
Defendant’s motion for remand therefore is granted. This matter is remanded pursuant to
19
42 U.S.C. § 405(g) sentence six.
20
SO ORDERED.
21
22
23
Dated: January 12, 2015
______________________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
2
5:13-cv-03504-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Lynn M. Harada Lynn.Harada@ssa.gov, ODAR.OAO.COURT.1@ssa.gov,
sf.ogc.ndca@ssa.gov
3
Steven Michael Goldstein
GoldyCISSP@hotmail.com
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?