Grays v. Social Security, Commissioner of
Filing
18
ORDER Accepting 17 Report and Recommendation and Remanding Action Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g) Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANGELA YALONDA GRAYS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 13-CV-11986
Honorable Denise Page Hood
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [#17]
and
REMANDING ACTION PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR
OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(G)
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder’s Report
and Recommendation. [Docket No. 17, filed July 14, 2014] In this Report and
Recommendation, Magistrate Binder recommended that this Court GRANT
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 9, filed October 16, 2013],
DENY the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 15,
February 18, 2014], REVERSE the Commissioner’s Decision, and REMAND this
matter “for the ALJ to develop the record as necessary, including obtaining residual
functional capacity assessment(s).” [Docket No. 17, Pg ID 476] Neither party has
filed an objection within the time provided under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D.
Mich. LR 72.1(d).
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. The
Magistrate Judge reviewed the ALJ’s findings and the record thoroughly in reaching
his conclusion that the “ALJ’s RFC is not based on the proper legal standard or
substantial evidence, therefore, a new step four and, if necessary, step five
determination must be made by the ALJ.” [Docket No. 17, Pg ID 476]
2
As recommended by the Magistrate Judge, this matter is remanded to the
Commissioner for the ALJ to develop the record, as necessary, and obtain residual
functional capacity assessments as needed. 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. Id. at 99-100. Sentence four remands are appropriate in
situations where the decision maker incorrectly applied the regulations in denying
disability benefits. See 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. at 101-02. Failure to remand under
3
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 [Docket No. 17, filed July 14, 2014] is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED as this Court’s findings and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Docket No. 9, filed October 16, 2013] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Docket No. 15, February 18, 2014] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s decision is
REVERSED and this action is REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: August 20, 2014
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of
record on August 20, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Julie Owens acting in the absence of LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?