Gulli v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER granting 37 MOTION to Remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 02/12/2018.(bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
C/A No.: 1:17-931-DCC-SVH
Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (“Commissioner”), by her attorneys, Beth Drake, United States Attorney,
and Marshall Prince, Assistant United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina,
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. [ECF No. 37]. The movant represents that Plaintiff’s counsel, Paul
Townsend McChesney, consents to the motion. Id.
By order of the court, this case is remanded to the Appeals Council. The Appeals
Council will direct the Administrative Law Judge to further evaluate the medical opinion
evidence of record; to take any action necessary to complete the administrative record;
and to issue a new decision.
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 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 of Court is directed to enter a
separate judgment pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 12, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
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?