Wenzel v. Social Security, Commissioner of

Filing 14

ORDER ACCEPTING 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and ORDER REMANDING ACTION Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KENNETH C. WENZEL,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-11897
Hon. Denise Page Hood

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
and
ORDER REMANDING ACTION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder’s
Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 12, filed April 3, 2014]. To date, no
objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to file
such has passed.
Judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision is limited in scope to
determining whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in
reaching his conclusion. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The
credibility findings of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) must not be discarded
lightly and should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health
and Human Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court’s review
of an ALJ’s decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve

conflicts in the evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at
397. The decision of the Commissioner must be upheld if supported by substantial
evidence, even if the record might support a contrary decision or if the district
court arrives at a different conclusion. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106,
108 (6th Cir. 1984); Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the
Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusion for the proper reasons. This Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s findings were not supported by
substantial evidence. The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there
are unresolved legal and factual issues to be determined by the ALJ and that this
matter be remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Supreme Court recognizes only two kinds of remands involving social
security cases–those pursuant to sentence four and those pursuant to sentence six
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 99 (1991); Sullivan v.
Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 626 (1990).

The Supreme Court concluded that

Congress’s explicit delineation in § 405(g) regarding circumstances under which
remands are authorized clearly showed that Congress intended to limit the district
court’s authority to enter remand orders in these two types of cases. Melkonyan,
501 U.S. at 100. Sentence four allows a district court to remand in conjunction
with a judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the Commissioner’s decision.
2

Id. at 99-100. Sentence four remands are appropriate in situations where the
decision maker incorrectly applied the regulations in denying disability benefits.
Faucher v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 17 F. 3d 171, 174 (6th Cir.
1994).

In such situations the district court must reverse the Commissioner’s

decision and remand the matter for further proceedings in order to correct the error.
Id. A judgment must be entered immediately with a sentence four remand and the
district court does not retain jurisdiction during the administrative proceedings on
remand. Melkonyan, 501 U.S. 101-02. Failure to remand under sentence four and
retention of jurisdiction is error. Shalala v. Schaeffer, 509 U.S. 292, 299 (1993).
A sentence four remand is a judgment for the plaintiff.

Id. at 302 (citations

omitted).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Charles E. Binder [Doc. No. 12, filed April 3, 2014] is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [Doc. No.
9, filed August 6, 2013] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. No. 11, filed October 31, 2013] is DENIED.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s findings are
REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under
Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is designated as CLOSED
on the Court’s docket.

S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: August 12, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on August 12, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

4