Dziamalek v. Astrue et al

Filing 23

ORDER: As set forth in the attached Order, the Court GRANTS the Defendant's Assented to Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Reversal and Remand of the Cause to the Defendant [Doc. # 22]. Plaintiff� 39;s Motion to Reverse and/or Remand the Decision of the Commissioner [Doc. # 16] is GRANTED to the extent set forth in this Order. This is not a Recommended Ruling. The parties have consented to the Magistrate Judge's entering a final order in this case without the need for entry of a recommended ruling and review by a District Judge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b).The Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment in favor of Plaintiff in this matter under Rule 58(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., to remand this cause to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings in accordance with this Order, and to close this case. Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 11/29/2011. (Smith, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
DONALD DZIAMALEK,

:

Plaintiff,

:

vs.

:

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,

:

No. 3:10cv1986(SRU)(WIG)

:
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------X
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
WITH REVERSAL AND REMAND [DOC. #22]
Defendant, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, has
moved this Court to enter judgment with a reversal and remand of this cause to the
Commissioner. Counsel for Defendant represents that she has contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, who
consents to the relief sought in this motion.
Under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court has the power to enter a judgment
with a reversal and remand of the cause to the Commissioner for further proceedings. See
Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991).
Remand for further development of the record is appropriate when gaps exist in the
administrative record or when the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) committed legal error. See
Parker v. Harris, 626 F.2d 225, 235 (2d Cir. 1980).
Here, the Commissioner has determined, and Plaintiff’s counsel concurs, that remand of
this case is necessary for further proceedings. Upon remand, the Appeals Council will remand the
case to an ALJ who will reassess all medical opinion and all other reports by others relating to
the severity and functional impact of Plaintiff’s impairments in accordance with the Social

Security Administration’s (“SSA”) regulations and policies. If necessary, the ALJ will obtain
additional clarification from treating medical sources, reassess Plaintiff’s credibility in
accordance with SSA regulations and policies, re-determine Plaintiff’s residual functional
capacity, and obtain an additional opinion from a vocational expert that takes into consideration
all of Plaintiff’s medically established functional limitations. In compliance with the above, the
ALJ will then issue a new decision.
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendant’s Assented to Motion for Entry
of Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) with Reversal and Remand of the Cause
to the Defendant [Doc. # 22]. Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner
[Doc. # 16] is GRANTED to the extent set forth in this Order.
This is not a Recommended Ruling. The parties have consented to the Magistrate
Judge’s entering a final order in this case without the need for entry of a recommended ruling and
review by a District Judge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b).
The Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment in favor of Plaintiff in this matter under
Rule 58(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., to remand this cause to the Commissioner for further administrative
proceedings in accordance with this Order, and to close this case.
It is SO ORDERED, this

29th

day of November, 2011, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/ William I. Garfinkel
WILLIAM I. GARFINKEL
United States Magistrate Judge

2