SHAW v. COLVIN
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARILY HEFFLEY 13 IS HEREBY APPROVED AND ADOPTED, ETC. THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL REMOVE THIS MATTER FROM SUSPENSE AND MARK THIS ACTION CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 02/28/2017. 02/28/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(nds)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2017, after
reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint requesting review of the
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the
Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff supplemental security income
under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Request for
Review”) (ECF No. 3), and the Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley (ECF No. 13),
there being no objections, it is hereby ORDERED that:
The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and
The fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) provides
that the 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). Judge Heffley found that the ALJ’s decision
did not comply with the substantial-evidence standard because
Plaintiff’s Request for Review is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
The Request for Review is GRANTED to the
extent that it seeks a reversal of the Commissioner’s decision
denying Plaintiff’s claim for supplemental security income.
Request for Review is DENIED to the extent it seeks a
determination by this Court that Plaintiff is entitled to
supplemental security income;
The Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s
claim for supplemental security income is REVERSED;
the ALJ failed to obtain and consider evidence regarding
Plaintiff’s prior disability determination. See Report and
Recommendation at 5-9. Judge Heffley recommended remanding the
matter to the Commissioner for consideration of that evidence.
See id. at 9. The Court agrees with Judge Heffley’s
determination that the ALJ should have obtained and considered
evidence supporting Plaintiff’s prior disability determination.
However, as the Supreme Court explained in Shalala v. Schaefer,
509 U.S. 292 (1993), a district court cannot merely remand a
matter to the Commissioner for the consideration of additional
evidence without resolving a claimant’s request for review,
entering judgment, and closing the case, unless (1) the
Commissioner requests a remand before answering the complaint,
or (2) “new, material evidence is adduced that was for good
cause not presented before the agency.” Id. at 296-98 & n.2
(citing § 405(g) (sentence six)). Here, Plaintiff does not
attempt to establish the good cause standard. Instead,
Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s failure to obtain and consider
evidence of his prior disability determination constituted a
prejudicial evidentiary or administrative error warranting
reversal. See Pl.’s Br. at 2-3, ECF No. 9. The Court agrees.
Accordingly, the Court will not only remand this matter to the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, but will
also enter judgment and close the case, as required.
This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner of
Social Security in accordance with the fourth sentence of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the
Report and Recommendation; and
The Clerk of Court shall remove this case from
suspense and mark the case as CLOSED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO,
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?