Jenkins v. Colvin
ORDER DENYING 27 Defendant's Motion to Remand. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 11/13/2014. (Fisher, M.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's motion for remand to the
Commissioner [D.E. 27]. Plaintiff has responded in opposition and the matter is ripe for ruling.
For the reasons detailed below, defendant's motion is DENIED.
In 2013, plaintiff appealed the Commissioner's denial of disability and insurance benefits
under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (SSA). Due to numerous errors committed by
defendant, both parties consented to remand, and on September 24, 2013, this Court ordered
remand of this case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See
4:13-CV-27-BO, D.E. 27. After reviewing the case, the Appeals Council issued its own order to
the new Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) regarding the errors that were made. Plaintiff now
alleges that on remand, the new ALJ committed the same errors as were committed previously,
"rendering the remand process fruitless," and has filed a new complaint in this Court. [D.E. 28 at
2.] The parties have not filed any motions for judgment on the pleadings, but defendant now
moves for remand, again pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
The Court has the power "to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a
judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without
remanding the case for a rehearing." § 405(g). Remand is appropriate "if the reviewing court has
no way of evaluating the basis for the AU's decision," but "[tJhere are, however, exceptions to
that [rule]." Radfordv. Colvin, 734 F.d3 288,295 (4th Cir. 2013). Where the case was old, the
record had no need to be reopened, and the case had already been on appeal once before, remand
was deemed unnecessary. Breeden v. Weinberger, 493 F.Zd 1002, 011-12 (4th Cir. 1974).
This case was remanded over a year ago pursuant to § 405(g). The Commissioner argues
that remand is again appropriate under the same statute, as it wishes to conduct further factfinding. [D.E. 27 at 2]. The record in this case has been closed for years, plaintiff's date last
insured was December 31, 2009, and the case has already been remanded once at defendant's
request. Pursuant to its discretion under § 405(g), the Court therefore finds that remand at this
early stage is inappropriate, and accordingly, defendant's motion for remand is DENIED.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this
_f_J_ day ofNovember, 2014.
T RRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
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?