Tayon v. Colvin
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Reverse and Remand (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED and this cause is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to.sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A separate Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered this same date. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 5/28/15. (JWJ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
No. 4:14CV1180 RLW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant' s Motion to Reverse and Remand (ECF No.
28). The suit involves an application for Supplemental Security Income (" SSI") under Title XVI
of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 , et seq. Plaintiff has filed a response indicating
that he has no objection to Defendant's motion.
On October 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed an application for SSI, alleging disability beginning
August 10, 2004. (Tr. 177) Plaintiff alleged he was unable to work due to bipolar;
schizophrenic; borderline incompetent - according to the federal court system. (Tr. 104) The
application was denied, and Plaintiff requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge
("ALJ"). (Tr. 104, 109) After an August 18, 2011 hearing, the ALJ issued a Decision on
October 3, 2011, finding that Plaintiff had not been under a disability since October 20, 2010.
(Tr. 58-96) On December 17, 2012, the Appeals Council granted Plaintiffs request for review,
vacated the hearing decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. (Tr. 102-03) After
a supplemental hearing held on May 20, 2013 , the ALJ again found that Plaintiff had not been
under a disability since October 20, 2010, the date he filed the application. (Tr. 10-57) The
Appeals Council denied Plaintiffs request for review on May 1, 2014. (Tr. 1-4) Thus the ALJ's
decision is the final decision of the Commissioner.
On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed this civil action for judicial review of the
Commissioner' s final decision, and the Commissioner filed her Answer on September 11 , 2014.
On May 27, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion to Reverse and Remand pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S .C. § 405(g).
In the motion, Defendant asserts that, after careful review of Plaintiffs case, agency
counsel requested that the Social Security Administration Appeals Council reconsider the
Commissioner' s decision. Upon review, the Appeals Council determined that remand was
appropriate for further consideration because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Plaintiffs
claim. In addition, Defendant avers that pursuant to this Court' s order of remand, the Appeals
Council will remand the case to the ALJ, who will update the record, obtain evidence from a
consultative examiner, and reassess the opinion evidence and Plaintiffs credibility. Further, the
ALJ will reevaluate Plaintiffs residual functional capacity and, if necessary, obtain evidence
from a vocational expert.
Two sentences in 42 U.S .C. § 405(g) govern remands. Shala/av. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292,
296 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 96 (1991). Defendant requests a remand under
sentence four, which states that upon review of Social Security determinations, " [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." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Sentence four requires substantive
ruling on the correctness of the administrative decision. Melkonyan , 501 U.S. at 98; Buckner v.
Apfel, 213 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2000). Further, case law suggests that a district court
should conduct a plenary review of the entire record before entering a judgment affirming,
modifying, or reversing the Commissioner' s decision with or without a remand order. See
Schaefer, 509 U.S. at 297; Buckner, 213 F.3d at 1010. 1
The undersigned has reviewed the record in light of Defendant' s assertions in the motion
to remand. Because the Appeals Council has agreed that remand is warranted, little discussion is
necessary. However, it is worth noting that Plaintiff has raised several points of error in his Brief
in Support of the Complaint, including failure to consider a structured setting, failure to properly
consider Plaintiffs severe impairments at Step 2, and failure to fully and fairly develop the
arguments both for and against granting benefits.
In light of Defendant' s motion, the Court will reverse and remand this case for further
consideration. On remand, the Appeals Council will remand the case to the ALJ and direct the
ALJ to update the record; obtain evidence from a consultative examiner; reassess the opinion
evidence and Plaintiffs credibility; reevaluate Plaintiffs residual functional capacity; and, if
necessary, obtain evidence from a vocational expert. Because Defendant agrees that the case
should be remanded, and Plaintiff has no objection, the Court will grant Defendant' s motion to
reverse and remand under sentence four.
The undersigned agrees that sentence four ' s phrase "upon the pleadings and transcript
of the record" supports the interpretation that plenary review is necessary before remand.
However, the statute does not explicitly mandate such in-depth evaluation. In the instant case,
such review would serve no useful purpose, as the Commissioner has moved for a sentence four
remand based upon infirmities in the ALJ's decision, and Plaintiff has no objection to the
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant' s Motion to Reverse and Remand (ECF No.
28) is GRANTED and this cause is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for
further proceedings pursuant to .sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A separate Judgment in
accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered this same date.
Dated this 28th day of May, 2015.
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A separate Judgment in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order is entered this same date.
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?