Middleton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
ORDER granting 27 Motion to Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g). Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph R McCrorey on 12/17/2013.(bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jacqueline E. Middleton,
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Civil Action No. 3:12-3230-DCN-JRM
The Defendant, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn W. Colvin, moves this
Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), to enter a judgment with an order of reversal with remand
of the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. Upon remand, the
Appeals Council will direct the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to re-evaluate all of the medical
evidence of record and re-contact the Plaintiff’s physician, Dr. Fisher, to clarify how long the
Plaintiff was required to rest and take breaks in an eight hour day; reassess the Plaintiff’s
residual functional capacity prior to the expiration of date last incurred; and obtain supplemental
vocational expert testimony.
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 with consent of the Plaintiff, this Court hereby REVERSES the
Commissioner=s decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g) with a REMAND of the
case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings as discussed above. 1 See
Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joseph R. McCrorey
United States Magistrate Judge
December 17, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina
The Clerk of 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?