Morgan v. Colvin

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 9 MOTION for Hearing filed by Plaintiff Mary C. Morgan, MOTION DENIED AS MOOT; 17 MOTION to Remand Case to Social Security Administration filed by Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin motion is GRANTED. IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Remand (Doc. No. 35) be and it is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the this cause be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for those reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs pro se Motion for Hearing (Doc. No. 9) be and it is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lewis M. Blanton on 12/9/13. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARY C. MORGAN
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13CV766 LMB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial review of defendant’s final decision
denying plaintiff’s application for benefits under the Social Security Act. Currently pending is
Defendant’s Motion for Remand. (Document Number 17). Plaintiff has filed a Response to
defendant’s motion. (Doc. No. 18). Also pending is plaintiff’s pro se Motion for Hearing, which
was filed prior to the appointment of counsel and prior to the filing of defendant’s Motion for
Remand. (Doc. No. 9).
In her motion, defendant requests that the court remand this action to the Commissioner
pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Defendant states that, before the Commissioner
filed her answer in this case, the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration
determined that remand was necessary because the claim file and recording of the July 6, 2011
administrative hearing could not be located. Defendant states that, upon receipt of the court’s
remand order, the Appeals Council of the Social Security Administration will continue to search
for the missing recording and contact plaintiff for information if necessary. Defendant further
-1-

states that, if the file and recording cannot be located in a reasonable period of time, the Appeals
Council will remand the case for a de novo hearing.
In her Response, plaintiff states that she has no objection to defendant’s Motion for
Remand.
Sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides that:
The court may, on motion of the Commissioner of Social Security made for good cause
shown before the Commissioner files the Commissioner’s answer, remand the case to the
Commissioner of Social Security for further action by the Commissioner of Social
Security. . .
The courts finds that it is appropriate to remand this case in order to permit the
Commissioner to take the action requested in her motion. Defendant has shown good cause why
remand is warranted.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Remand (Doc. No. 35) be and
it is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the this cause be remanded to the Commissioner for
further proceedings pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for those reasons set forth in
this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s pro se Motion for Hearing (Doc. No. 9) be
and it is denied as moot.

-2-

Dated this 9th day of December, 2013.

LEWIS M. BLANTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-