Coursey v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl granting 24 Motion for Judgment under Sentence Four. The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g), the case is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings. (See Order for specific directions upon remand.) cc: Counsel (CDR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV-00005-HBB
BOBBY J. COURSEY

PLAINTIFF

VS.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
Defendant has filed a joint motion for remand for further proceedings under sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) (DN 24). The case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s complaint seeking
judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner, under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties have consented to the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge conducting all further proceedings in this case,
including issuance of a memorandum opinion and entry of judgment, with direct review by the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the event an appeal is filed.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Plaintiff protectively filed applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental
Security Income payments on April 25, 2011 (Tr. 18, 233, 238). Following an administrative
hearing, Administrative Law Judge Susan Wakshul (AALJ@) issued a decision dated November 1,
2013 (Id. at 18-28). The ALJ found Plaintiff does not have the residual functional capacity to
perform his past relevant work (Id. at 27). However, the ALJ determined there are jobs that exist

1

in significant numbers in the national economy that Plaintiff can perform considering his age,
education, work experience, and residual functional capacity (Id. at 27-28). Therefore, the ALJ
concluded Plaintiff has not been under a Adisability,@ as defined in the Social Security Act, from
January 31, 2009, through the date of the decision (Id. at 28).
Plaintiff timely filed a request for the Appeals Council to review the ALJ=s decision (Tr.
14). The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff=s request for review of the ALJ=s decision (Tr. 1-3).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Defendant has filed a joint motion for remand for further proceedings pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) (DN 24). A remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. '405(g) is
a post-judgment remand.

Faucher v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171, 175 (6th

Cir. 1994). This means the case is remanded to the Commissioner in conjunction with the
Court making a final judgment that affirms, reverses, or modifies the final decision of the
Commissioner.

Id.

Further, under sentence four, the Court may order the Commissioner to

consider additional evidence on remand to remedy a defect in the original proceedings. Id.
Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), the undersigned will issue a judgment that
reverses the final decision of the Commissioner and remands the case to the Commissioner.
Additionally, on remand, the Administrative Law Judge is directed to further evaluate the opinions
of Dr. Cabezas and Dr. Prout in their entirety and reassess the residual functional capacity with
respect to Plaintiff’s mental functioning; further evaluate Plaintiff’s postural and manipulative
functioning, in light of all the medical opinions; consider Plaintiff’s reasons for noncompliance
pursuant to Social Security Ruling 96-7p; offer the opportunity for a new hearing; and issue a new
decision.
2

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant=s joint motion for remand for further
proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (DN 24) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner is
REVERSED and, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), the case is remanded to the
Commissioner for further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon remand the Commissioner will instruct the
Administrative Law Judge to further evaluate the opinions of Dr. Cabezas and Dr. Prout in their
entirety and reassess the residual functional capacity with respect to Plaintiff’s mental functioning;
further evaluate Plaintiff’s postural and manipulative functioning, in light of all the medical
opinions; consider Plaintiff’s reasons for noncompliance pursuant to Social Security Ruling 96-7p;
offer the opportunity for a new hearing; and issue a new decision.
This is a final and appealable Order and there is no just cause for delay.

September 30, 2015

Copies:

Counsel

3