Soto v. Colvin

Filing 20

ORDER: As set forth in the attached Ruling, the Court GRANTS the Defendant's Consent 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 18 . Additionally, Plainti ff's Motion to Remand 15 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 recomm ended 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 11/13/2014. (Smith, M.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
HECTOR L. SOTO,

:

Plaintiff,

:

vs.

: No. 3:14cv0513(WIG)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,

:
:

Defendant.
:
---------------------------------------------------------------X

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S CONSENT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
WITH REVERSAL AND REMAND [DOC. # 18]
Defendant, Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, has moved this Court to enter judgment under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), with a reversal and remand of this cause to the Commissioner for further action. Counsel
for Defendant represents that he has contacted Plaintiff’s counsel, Meryl Spat, 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 development of the record and additional administrative

proceedings. Upon remand, the Social Security Administration Appeals Council will remand
this case to an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), who will give Plaintiff the opportunity for a
new hearing and to submit additional evidence in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.331,
404.350. The ALJ will reassess Plaintiff’s maximum residual functional capacity, and, in so
doing, will reevaluate the medical and other opinions of record. If necessary, the ALJ will also
obtain vocational expert testimony to determine whether Plaintiff can perform his past relevant
work and/or make an adjustment to other work that exists in significant numbers. The ALJ will
then issue a new decision.
Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Defendant’s Consent 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. # 18]. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. # 15] 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). 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 November, 2014, at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/ William I. Garfinkel
WILLIAM I. GARFINKEL
United States Magistrate Judge
2