Mann v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Remand. The Commissioner's decision is hereby reversed and this case is remanded to allow the Commissioner to conduct further proceedings. Judgment shall enter in favor of Mann and against the Commissioner. Signed by Chief Judge Leonard T Strand on 4/5/17. (djs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN DIVISION
DES R. MANN,
Plaintiff,

No. C16-2085-LTS

vs.

ORDER

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
___________________________
This case is before me on an unopposed motion (Doc. No. 14) by defendant (the
Commissioner) to reverse and remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
and Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991) “to allow the Commissioner to conduct
further proceedings.” Doc. No. 14-1 at 1. On January 4, 2012, plaintiff Des R. Mann
(Mann) filed for disability benefits and supplemental security income benefits under Titles
II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. See Administrative
Record (AR) at 180-196. Her claim was denied and she timely applied for judicial
review. Upon judicial review, this court remanded her case on April 23, 2015. See
Mann v. Colvin, 100 F. Supp. 3d 710 (N.D. Iowa 2015). On remand, the ALJ held a
new hearing and, on April 21, 2016, again denied Mann’s claim on April 21, 2016. AR
at 607-29. Mann initiated this action, again seeking judicial review, on July 27, 2016.
See Doc. No. 1. The Commissioner’s unopposed motion (Doc. No. 14) to remand
requests that the court remand this case to “allow the Commissioner to conduct further
proceedings” and that “[p]laintiff concurs that the court should remand the case.” Doc.
No. 14-1 at 1.

Sentence four authorizes a court to enter “a judgment affirming, modifying, or
reversing the decision of the Secretary, with or without remanding the cause for a
rehearing.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Eighth Circuit has clarified that the court may not
enter an order for remand without affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s
decision as required by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Without one of those actions, the Eighth
Circuit noted “there would be no statutory ‘power’ to remand pursuant to sentence four.”
Brown v. Barnhart, 282 F.3d 580, 581 (8th Cir. 2002). No review of the record is
required when the parties agree that a sentence four remand is appropriate. See Cuvelier
v. Astrue, No. C10-3027-MWB, 2010 WL 3718013 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 14, 2010)
(explaining why a full review of the administrative record is not required if the parties
agree that a sentence four remand is appropriate based, in part, on Brown, 282 F.3d at
581).
Because the parties agree that remand is appropriate pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner’s unopposed motion (Doc. No. 14) to reverse and
remand is granted. The Commissioner’s decision is hereby reversed and this case is
remanded to allow the Commissioner to conduct further proceedings. Judgment shall
enter in favor of Mann and against the Commissioner.
If Mann wishes to request an award of attorney's fees and costs under the Equal
Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, an application may be filed up until 30
days after the judgment becomes “not appealable,” i.e., 30 days after the 60-day time
for appeal has ended. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296 (1993); 28 U.S.C. §§
2412(d)(1)(B), (d)(2)(G).

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 5th day of April, 2017.

________________________________
LEONARD T. STRAND
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3