Sullivan v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of (PLR1)

Filing 30

ORDER OF REMAND. Signed by Magistrate Judge H Bruce Guyton on 2/13/19. (ABF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
ERIN COLLEEN SULLIVAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:16-CV-361-HBG

ORDER OF REMAND
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court,
and the consent of the parties [Doc. 18].
Plaintiff Erin Colleen Sullivan, through counsel, filed this action on December 6, 2016
appealing the final decision of the Commissioner which denied her application for supplemental
security income. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
[Doc. 19], and the Commissioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 21]. On March 21,
2018, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and granted the
Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, thus affirming the Commissioner’s decision
denying benefits and dismissing the case. [Doc. 24]. Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal on May
16, 2018. [Doc. 26]. On December 17, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated
the Court’s order and directed a remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings. [Doc. 28].
The mandate has now issued.
Accordingly, pursuant 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 section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and in light of the Sixth

Circuit’s mandate to remand this action, the Court hereby enters a judgment under sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) reversing the Commissioner’s decision with a remand of the cause to the
Commissioner. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 296 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501
U.S. 89, 97–98 (1991). Upon receipt of the Court’s remand order, the Appeals Council of the
Social Security Administration SHALL REMAND the case to the Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) for reconsideration consistent with the Sixth Circuit’s opinion.
Specifically, this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for reconsideration
consistent with the Sixth Circuit’s opinion, including that the ALJ reconsider or more fully explain
the lack of weight given to Dr. Gray’s opinions and, if necessary, re-evaluate Plaintiff’s testimony
and reconsider the step-two determination that Plaintiff’s CRPS is not a severe impairment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

United States Magistrate Judge

2