Mayhew v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
38
ORDER GRANTING 37 EX PARTE MOTION FOR A VOLUNTARY REMAND PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/20/2015. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
DONNA L. CALVERT
Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration
JEFFREY CHEN, CSBN 260516
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
160 Spear Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 977-8939
Facsimile: (415) 744-0134
Email: Jeffrey.Chen@ssa.gov
Attorneys for Defendant
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SAN JOSE DIVISION
13
14
JOHN MAYHEW,
15
Plaintiff,
16
v.
17
18
19
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
20
21
22
23
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 5:13-cv-04521-BLF
EX PARTE MOTION FOR A
VOLUNTARY REMAND PURUSANT TO
SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
Defendant hereby moves, through her undersigned attorneys, and with the approval of the
Court, to a voluntary remand of this case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Upon further examination of the record, it appears that there is an inconsistency between
24
the ALJ’s overpayment calculations as compared with the agency’s payment records. Upon
25
remand, the ALJ shall re-calculate Plaintiff’s overpayment, if any, for the period beginning in
26
1995, re-determine Plaintiff’s total overpayment, and issue a new administrative decision.
27
28
Motion for Sentence 4 Remand
1
1
Respectfully submitted,
2
3
Date: February 3, 2015
MELINDA HAAG
United States Attorney
4
By:
5
6
/s/ Jeffrey Chen
JEFFREY CHEN
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ORDER
15
16
17
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:
DATED:
HONORABLE BETH L. FREEMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Motion for Sentence 4 Remand
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?