Giordano v. Astrue

Filing 12

ORDER granting Defendant's 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 10 . This is not a Recommended Ruling. The parties have consented to the Magistrate J udge'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 1/23/2012. (Smith, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
THOMAS GIORDANO,

:

Plaintiff,

:

vs.

:

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,

:

No. 3:11cv01505(WIG)

:
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------X
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
WITH REVERSAL AND REMAND [DOC. # 10]
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 additional administrative action. Upon remand, the Appeals Council
will remand this case to an ALJ for a new hearing and to issue a new decision based upon the
entire record. The ALJ will further evaluate Plaintiff’s mental impairments in accordance with

the special technique prescribed by the Social Security Administration. The ALJ will give
further consideration to all of the treating and examining source opinions and explain the weight
given to such opinion evidence. The ALJ will give further consideration to the Plaintiff’s
maximum residual function capacity, based upon the entire record, and provide appropriate
rationale with specific references to evidence of record in support of the assessed limitations.
The ALJ will obtain testimony from a vocational expert to clarify the effect of the assessed
limitations on the Plaintiff’s occupational base. The hypothetical questions posed to the
vocational expert should reflect the specific capacity/limitations established by the record as a
whole. The ALJ should ask the vocational expert to identify examples of appropriate jobs and to
state the incidence of such jobs in the national economy.
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendant’s 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. # 10].
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

23rd

day of January, 2012, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/ William I. Garfinkel
WILLIAM I. GARFINKEL
United States Magistrate Judge
2