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)

Download PDF
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?