Belleville v. Berryhill
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's unopposed motion to reverse and remand [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED and REMANDED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for reconsideration and further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A separate judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered this date. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Cohen on March 21, 2018. (MCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
FRANK CAMPBELL BELLEVILLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:17-CV-2546 PLC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court 1 on the motion filed by Acting Commissioner Nancy A.
Berryhill (“Defendant”) to reverse the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and
remand the case to Defendant for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of
Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) [ECF No. 18]. Plaintiff responded
“assent[ing] to the agency’s Motion to Remand [while expressing] concerns” he wants the Court
to address [ECF No. 19]. Defendant did not file a reply responding to Plaintiff’s “concerns.”
On October 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking review of Defendant’s final
decision, the ALJ’s decision, denying Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance and
supplemental security income benefits under the Social Security Act [ECF No. 1]. Defendant
filed her answer and a transcript of the administrative proceedings, and Plaintiff filed a brief in
support of the complaint, along with Plaintiff’s statement of uncontroverted material facts [ECF
Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 15-1, respectively]. In his brief, Plaintiff challenges the ALJ’s alleged
failure to adjudicate the entire “period [of his disability] from the alleged onset date of April 15,
2014” and to properly consider and include in the residual functional capacity assessment and the
1
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c)(1) [ECF No. 4].
hypothetical to the vocational expert the requirement “that when lifting Plaintiff must keep his
arms close to his body.”
On March 6, 2018, Defendant filed her motion asking the Court to enter a final judgment
reversing the decision of the ALJ and remanding the case to Defendant under sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). Defendant represents that, upon review of the record, counsel for Defendant
determined that “remand [i]s necessary for further evaluation of Plaintiff’s claim.” In particular,
Defendant states that on remand the Acting Commissioner “will evaluate and determine a
residual function[al] capacity for the entire period relevant to Plaintiff’s claim, beginning on
April 15, 2014, his alleged onset date of disability.” 2
Sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes a court to enter “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). A remand under sentence four of
Section 405(g) is proper when remand occurs after the defendant files an answer and the
remand’s “apparent purpose . . . [is] to prompt additional factfinding and further evaluation of
existing facts.” Buckner v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2000) (reversing a remand under
sentence six of Section 405(g) based on the defendant’s motion to remand under sentence four of
Section 405(g) so the defendant could “further evaluate [the plaintiff]’s ability to perform past
relevant work”). More specifically, the Eighth Circuit concluded a remand order that “directs
[Defendant] to cure some specific defect in the administrative proceeding, such as the ALJ’s
failure to develop the record or to properly evaluate the evidence” is a sentence four, rather than
a sentence six, remand. Id. at 1011.
One of Plaintiff’s concerns focuses on the status or identification of the person presently
2
Defendant also states the Court’s entry of “the final judgment remanding this case [under sentence four of
Section 405(g)] will begin the appeal period which determines the 30-day period during which a timely application
for attorney’s fees may be made under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412.”
2
holding the position of Commissioner or Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) provides that “[a]n action does not abate
when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity . . . ceases to hold office while the
action is pending” and “the absence of . . . an order [of substitution] does not affect substitution”
of the officer’s successor, who “is automatically substituted as a party.” Therefore, to resolve
this case the undersigned need not further address who, if anyone other than Acting
Commissioner Berryhill, should be named as Defendant in this proceeding.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to enter an order remanding the case to the agency and enter
judgment under sentence four. That request is the same as the relief Defendant requested in her
motion. Finding agreement between the parties as to the requested relief, the undersigned need
not further address this “concern” of Plaintiff.
Upon review of Plaintiff’s brief in support of his complaint, the ALJ’s decision, and
Defendant’s unopposed motion, the Court agrees with the parties that this case should be
reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative
proceedings. After careful consideration,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s unopposed motion to reverse and remand
[ECF No. 18] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final decision of the Commissioner of Social
Security is REVERSED and REMANDED under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for
reconsideration and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A separate judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order is entered this date.
PATRICIA L. COHEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 21st day of March, 2018
3
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?