Ciaccia v. Astrue et al
ORDER: As set forth in the attached Order, the Court grants Defendant's consented to Motion for Entry of Judgment with a Reversal and Remand of this Action to the Social Security Administration 24 for further proceedings consistent with this Order and grants 18 Plaintiff's Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner to the extent set forth in this Order. This is not a recommended ruling. The parties have consented to the entry of a final judgment by this Magistrate Judge. The Clerk should close this file and enter judgemnt in favor of the Plaintiff. Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 11/19/2013. (Smith, M.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ELIZABETH A. CIACCIA,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
WITH REVERSAL AND REMAND [DOC. # 24]
Defendant, Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting 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 he has contacted Plaintiff’s counsel,
Ivan Katz, Esq., 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 administrative proceedings. Upon remand, the Social Security
Administration’s Appeals council will remand the case to a new ALJ. The ALJ will give
Plaintiff the opportunity to submit further evidence and the opportunity for a new hearing. The
ALJ will further evaluate Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, giving further consideration to
the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating and examining physicians; and the ALJ will further evaluate
Plaintiff’s ability to perform work existing in significant numbers, obtaining additional
vocational expert testimony if necessary. The ALJ will then issue a new decision.
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. # 24]. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reverse the Decision of the Commissioner and to
Remand to the Agency [Doc. # 18] is also 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).
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
day of November 2013, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/ William I. Garfinkel
WILLIAM I. GARFINKEL
United States Magistrate Judge
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?