ENGLE v. BERRYHILL
ORDER THAT THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFF 18 IS GRANTED IN PART AS DESCRIBED BELOW; THE CASE IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER PURSUANT TO THE FOURTH SENTENCE OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(G), AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MEMORANDUM OPINION FILED THIS DATE, WILL BE ASSIGNED TO A DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONALLY APPOINTED ALJ FOR A NEW HEARING AND DECISION; AND IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR RELIEF IS DENIED. SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE HENRY S. PERKIN ON 3/31/21. 3/31/21 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mas, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANDREW M. SAUL, COMMISSIONER
OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2021, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Brief and
Statement of Issues in Support of Request for Judicial Review (Dkt. No.18), Defendant’s Response
(Dkt. No. 19), the Defendant’s Response to the Court’s Order whether this case should be reversed
and remanded for reconsideration by a properly appointed Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”),
pursuant Cirko ex rel. Cirko v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 948 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 2020) (Dkt. No. 21), and
for the reasons expressed in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS ORDERED that:
The relief sought by Plaintiff is GRANTED in part as described below;
The case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), and in accordance with the Memorandum Opinion filed this date, will be assigned to
a different Constitutionally appointed ALJ for a new hearing and Decision; and
In all other respects, Plaintiff’s request for relief is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
_/s/ Henry S. Perkin__________
HENRY S. PERKIN
United States Magistrate Judge
Andrew M. Saul became the Commissioner of Social Security in June 2019. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
25(d), he is automatically substituted as a party in place of Nancy A. Berryhill, who was Acting Commissioner from
January 23, 2017 through June of 2019.
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?