Daniels v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
18
ORDER granting 17 Motion to Remand. The case is reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration. Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 11/14/2017.(abuc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Ashley Kristine Daniels,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nancy A. Berryhill,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-627-MBS-KFM
ORDER
On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff Ashley Kristine Daniels brought this action seeking judicial
review of Defendant Commissioner’s denial of Plaintiff’s application for children’s insurance
benefits and for supplemental security income. On November 13, 2017, Defendant filed a motion
for entry of judgment with order of remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Defendant contends that the case would benefit from additional administrative development.
Specifically, Defendant contends that the Appeals Council should instruct an administrative law
judge to complete the administrative record and call a medical expert, if warranted; further evaluate
Plaintiff’s impairments at step two of the sequential evaluation process; further evaluate of Plaintiff’s
impairments at step three, including Plaintiff’s intellectual functioning and articulate whether the
impairments meet or medically equal any of the Commissioner’s listed impairments; and issue a new
decision. Plaintiff consents to the motion. Accordingly,
Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 17) is granted. The case is reversed and remanded
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration as set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
November 14, 2017
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?