Cappello v. Colvin

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Reverse and Remand [Doc. # 19] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and this cause be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) for those reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order. A separate writtenJudgment will be entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Abbie Crites-Leoni on 10/16/2014. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY B. CAPPELLO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14CV506 ACL

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 to Reverse and Remand. [Doc. # 19] Plaintiff has filed a Reply.
[Doc. # 20]
In her motion, Defendant requests that the Court remand this action to the Commissioner
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g). Defendant states that, after careful review of the
above-captioned case, agency counsel requested the Appeals Council of the Social Security
Administration to reconsider the Commissioner’s decision. Defendant states that, upon receipt of
the Court’s remand order, the Appeals Council will remand this case to the Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”), who will be directed to obtain evidence from a vocational expert to determine
whether Plaintiff is capable of performing work existing in significant numbers in the national
economy rather than using the Medical-Vocational Guidelines found at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P,
app. 2.

In his Response, Plaintiff objects that the scope of the proposed remand is not sufficiently
broad to address the errors he alleges in his Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff states that he

identified four categories of errors in the ALJ’s decision: (1) the failure to elicit testimony from a
vocational expert; (2) failure to provide a residual functional capacity (“RFC”) finding consistent
with the other findings, that was explained, and that fully accounted for Plaintiff’s mental
functional limits; (3) error in the weighing of physician opinions; and (4) error in the assessment of
Plaintiff’s credibility. Plaintiff states that Defendant’s Motion to Remand addresses only one of
these four areas of errorCthe lack of vocational expert evidence. Plaintiff contends that, a remand
to the ALJ for merely the receipt of vocational expert testimony, while using identical findings
otherwise, would repeat the remaining errors and produce the inefficient result of the need for
Plaintiff to return to this Court with the remaining three of four arguments. Plaintiff therefore
requests that the Court remand the matter to the ALJ for an entirely new decision. Defendant has
replied that upon remand, “Plaintiff will have an opportunity to ask the ALJ for a new hearing and
raise any issues he deems necessary.” [Doc. # 27 at 1]
Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) states that “[t]he court shall have power to enter, upon
the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a
rehearing.” However, in order for the Court to properly remand a case to the Commissioner
pursuant to sentence four, the Court must enter an order either affirming, modifying, or reversing
the Commissioner’s decision. See Brown v. Barnhart, 282 F.3d 580, 581 (8th Cir. 2002).
The Court finds that judicial economy and the interests of justice are best served by
reversing and remanding this matter for reconsideration of the issues identified by Defendant and

-2-

Plaintiff. On remand, the ALJ should ensure that her entire decision complies with the relevant
regulations.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant=s Motion to Reverse and Remand [Doc. # 19]
is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and
this cause be remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) for those reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order. A separate written
Judgment will be entered in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

ABBIE CRITES-LEONI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 16th day of October, 2014.

-3-