McDonald v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER granting 18 Motion to Remand. The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff LeaAnn McDonald and against Defendant Commissioner of Social Security and close the file. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 4/17/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
LEAANN MCDONALD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:16-cv-1150-Orl-37JRK

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
ORDER
In this appeal, Plaintiff challenges the Commissioner’s decision to deny her social
security disability benefits. (See Doc. 1.) On December 13, 2016, the transcript of
administrative proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) was
transmitted to this Court and included, inter alia, Plaintiff’s medical records from
Dr. Bruce R. Hoffen (“Dr. Hoffen”). (See Doc. 15-14.) Thereafter, the Court entered a
scheduling order, which directed the parties to brief the Court on their respective
positions by a date certain. (Doc. 16.) Instead of filing its papers in support, the
Commissioner now moves the Court for an Order reversing its denial of Plaintiff’s
benefits and remanding the action to the ALJ for further administrative proceedings.
(Doc. 18 (“Motion”).)
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) a court “shall have power to enter, upon the
pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security, with or without remanding the cause
-1-

for a rehearing.” See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296–97 (1993) (explaining that § 405(g)
requires a district court to enter judgment at the time of remand).
According to the Commissioner, remand is necessary so that the ALJ can:
“(1) further evaluate the opinion of Dr. Hoffen; (2) further evaluate Plaintiff’s maximum
residual functional capacity; and (3) if warranted, obtain supplemental evidence from a
vocational expert to clarify the effects of the assessed limitations on the occupational
base” (“Evaluation Issues”). (Doc. 18, p. 1.) In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that
the Motion is due to be granted, and the action is due to be remanded for further
consideration of the Evaluation Issues.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Defendant’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Judgment with Remand
(Doc. 18) is GRANTED.

2.

The decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and REMANDED.

3.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff LeaAnn
McDonald and against Defendant Commissioner of Social Security and
close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on April 17, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record
-2-