Kelley v. Commissioner of Social Security
ORDER GRANTING 18 Defendant's Motion to Remand, and DENYING 21 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 6/11/2014. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff via US Mail. (Fisher, M.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SHIRLEY A. KELLEY,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
This matter comes before the Court on the Acting Commissioner's motion for remand.
Plaintiff opposes remand and seeks an order reversing the decision of the ALJ.
The Acting Commissioner has demonstrated that remand in this instance is appropriate as
the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to cite to any evidence in the record to support his
findings with respect to any overpayment, frustrating this Court's ability to review his decision.
Accordingly, the motion to remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) [DE 18] is
GRANTED. Upon remand, plaintiff shall be allowed further administrative proceedings before
an ALJ to, among other things, allow the ALJ to request the Program Service Center to provide
an explanation of the amount of benefits payable to plaintiff in July 1996 and continuing, and the
period of any overpayment, with supporting documentation. The Program Service Center should
also determine the exact amount of any overpayment that the Administration has recovered. The
ALJ shall then make new findings regarding the period and amount of overpayment received by
plaintiff and explain the evidence on which his findings are based.
As the Court has found that remand is appropriate, plaintiffs motion for judgment
reversing the decision ofthe Commissioner [DE 21] is DENIED. The clerk is DIRECTED to
enter judgment and to close the file.
SO ORDERED, this
J}_ day of June, 2014.
NCE 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?