Ptomey v. Social Security Administration

Filing 22

OPINION AND ORDER Remanding Case for Further Administrative Proceedings by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder GRANTING 21 Motion to Withdraw Defendant's Answer and Remand the Case to the Agency Pursuant to Sentence Six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ndd, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

STEVIE CHRISTINE PTOMEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-110-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE
FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Defendant’s Answer and
Remand the Case to the Agency Pursuant to Sentence Six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) [Docket
No. 21]. The Commissioner requests that this case be remanded pursuant to sentence six
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) because material portions of the vocational expert’s testimony from
the November 5, 2013 administrative hearing are inaudible.

Remand may only be

accomplished in three circumstances:
The court may remand the case after passing on its merits and issuing a
judgment affirming, reversing, or modifying the [Commissioner’s]
decision, a ‘sentence four’ remand. Alternatively, the court may remand
the case without ruling on the merits if (a) the [Commissioner] requests
remand, for good cause, prior to filing [his] answer; or (b) new and material
evidence comes to light, and there is good cause for failing to incorporate
such evidence in the earlier proceeding. These are ‘sentence six’ remands.

Nguyen v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1400, 1403 (10th Cir. 1994), citing Melkonyan v. Sullivan,
501 U.S. 89, 98, 100 n.2; 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The Commissioner represents that the Plaintiff’s counsel has been contacted and
does not oppose withdrawal of Defendant’s Answer or remand under sentence six
generally, but further requests that the Court order additional items be included in the
Plaintiff’s file, namely: (i) a copy of Plaintiff’s initial application for Title II benefits; (ii)
a copy of the transcript from the administrative hearing that took place on September 14,
2009, in Ardmore, Oklahoma; (iii) Social Security Notice, dated June 2, 2007; (iv) Letter
from Attorney, dated December 5, 2006, with enclosed Request for Review; and (v) the
first three pages from the Hearing Decision dated November 21, 2006. Noting that the
Appeals Council accepted the case for voluntary remand solely on the basis of the
deficiency related to the vocational expert’s hearing testimony, the Defendant does not
agree to remand on the additional bases, but acknowledges that the Plaintiff’s claim will
be reviewed de novo and Plaintiff may provide any documents and raise any arguments
she deems helpful to her case.
The Court therefore finds that the reason proffered by the Commissioner for the
remand of this case represents “good cause” as envisioned by the sentence six remand.
Accordingly, the Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Defendant’s Answer and Remand the
Case to the Agency Pursuant to Sentence Six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) [Docket No. 21] is
hereby GRANTED.

The case is hereby REMANDED for further administrative

proceedings pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of January, 2015.