Spakoski v. Astrue

Filing 18

ORDER granting 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 17 . Plaintiff's Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of Defe ndant Commissioner 12 is GRANTED to the extent set forth in this Ruling.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 rul ing 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. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 2/13/2012. (Smith, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ALLISON MARY SPAKOSKI,

:

Plaintiff,

:

vs.

:

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,

:

No. 3:11cv700(MRK)(WIG)

:
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------X
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
WITH REVERSAL AND REMAND [DOC. # 17]
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, Ivan
M. Katz, 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 development of the record and additional administrative action.
Upon remand, the Appeals Council will assign the case to an ALJ who will be directed to update
Plaintiff’s medical records in light of her date last insured of December 30, 2012. All medical

records pertaining to “Sparkie Allison,” rather than to the Plaintiff, will be purged from the
administrative record. The ALJ will obtain medical expert review of the updated and corrected
record, and the medical expert will be asked to give an opinion as to Plaintiff’s severe
impairments and the extent of any resulting functional limitations. The ALJ will reconsider
Plaintiff’ residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and the credibility of her subjective symptomatic
complaints in light of the new medical evidence and the removal from the record of treatment
notes pertaining to Sparkie Allison. A de novo administrative hearing will be held with
vocational expert testimony as needed to assist the ALJ in determining the impact of a revised
RFC on Plaintiff’s ability to perform work at the relevant exertional level, and to provide
numbers in which any jobs identified at step five, in the sequential evaluation process, exist in
the national and/or regional economy. The ALJ will then issue a new decision based upon the
total record, which accurately states the basis for any adverse step one findings of substantial
gainful activity (“SGA”), identifies medical opinion support for step two findings on severity and
for Plaintiff’s RFC, and relies on record evidence at step five for the numbers of jobs in the
national and/or regional economy.
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. # 17]. Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Reversing the Decision of Defendant
Commissioner [Doc. # 12] is GRANTED to the extent set forth in this Ruling.
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).
2

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

13th

day of February, 2012, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

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

3