Boykin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 12

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Remand, reversing the decision of the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and remanding the action for further evaluation. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 11/30/2018.(bshr, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION Dorine Boykin, Plaintiff, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 0:18-01288-TMC-PJG ORDER The Defendant, Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), has moved to remand this case for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 11). The Plaintiff consents to the remand. Id. at 2. The Commissioner states that, on remand, the Appeals Council is to affirm the finding of disability as of May 31, 2017. (ECF No. 11-1 at 1). The Commissioner seeks to have the Appeals Council refer Plaintiff’s case to an administrative law judge for further administrative development for the period prior to May 31, 2017. Id. Pursuant to the power of this court to enter a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s decision with remand in Social Security actions under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), and in light of the Commissioner’s request for remand of this action for further proceedings, this court hereby ORDERS that the Defendant’s motion is granted and this action is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further evaluation pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g). 1 See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993). AND IT IS SO ORDERED. November 30, 2018 Anderson, South Carolina 1 s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge The Clerk of the Court will enter a separate judgment pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 58.

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?