Royce v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 16

ORDER granting 15 Consent MOTION to Remand under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 07/26/2017.(bshr, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA AIKEN DIVISION Robinson Dane Royce, ) Civil Action No.: 1:16-cv-3612-BHH ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) NANCY A. BERRYHILL1, ) Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________ ) Defendant, Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security moves pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for an order of reversal with remand of the cause to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993). Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s motion. Upon consideration, Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. The Court hereby REVERSES the Commissioner's decision in this matter under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)2, and REMANDS the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the ALJ should specifically: (1) evaluate the record regarding Plaintiff’s functional limitations and vocational history, including obtaining testimony from a vocational expert, if necessary; and (2) issue a new decision. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks United States District Judge July 26, 2017 1 Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill should be substituted for Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 2 The Clerk of Court will enter a separate judgment pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 58. Greenville, South Carolina

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?