McElveen v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
17
ORDER granting 16 Motion to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 01/24/2014.(bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Laura A. McElveen,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No. 1:13-1332-RBH-SVH
ORDER
Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, by her
attorneys, William N. Nettles, United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina,
and Barbara M. Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, has moved this Court,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), to enter a judgment with an order of reversal with remand
of the cause to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.
This case is remanded to the Appeals Council to remand the case to an ALJ with
instructions to hold a supplemental hearing, make new findings with respect to Plaintiff’s
residual functional capacity, obtain supplemental vocational expert evidence, and issue a
new decision for the period at issue.
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
1
remand of this action for further proceedings, the court reverses the Commissioner’s
decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) with a remand of the cause to the
Commissioner for further administrative proceedings as set out above. See Shalala v.
Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).
The clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 24, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
2
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?