Brannon v. Social Security Administration

Filing 29

ORDER: In light of the representations by Defendant, and the lack of opposition by Plaintiff, the Motion 27 is GRANTED. The decision of the Commission of Social Security is hereby REVERSED, and this action is REMANDED for further proceedings. See S halala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 (1993) (holding that a district court remanding a case pursuant to "sentence four" of the Social Security Act must enter judgment either affirming, reversing or modifying the administrative decision, and may not retain jurisdiction over administrative proceedings on remand). The Clerk shall enter final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and close this case. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 1/7/2022. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

TAMARA L. BRANNON,
Plaintiff,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of
Social Security,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:21-cv-00360
JUDGE RICHARDSON

Defendant.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s “Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Sentence
Four, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)” (Doc. No. 27, “Motion”), supported by an accompanying
Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 28). Via the Motion, Defendant requests that the Court enter a
final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure reversing the ALJ’s
decision and remanding this case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). Defendant represents that Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion. (Doc. No. 27 at 1).
Remand for further evaluation under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is proper when
further evaluation of the evidence is required. See Brooks v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 531 F. App’x
636, 644 (6th Cir. 2013). Here, Defendant contends that further evaluation of the evidence is
required, because the ALJ “did not adequately evaluate the opinion of Plaintiff’s psychiatrist, Dr.
Indukuri, as it pertained to Plaintiff’s ability to work with pressure (Tr. 23). The decision also did
not adequately evaluate the opinion of Dr. Brown as it pertained to Plaintiff’s social functioning
(Tr. 23).” (Doc. No. 28 at 1).

1
Case 3:21-cv-00360 Document 29 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 747

In light of the representations by Defendant, and the lack of opposition by Plaintiff, the
Motion is GRANTED. The decision of the Commission of Social Security is hereby
REVERSED, and this action is REMANDED for further proceedings. See Shalala v. Schaefer,
509 U.S. 292, 297 (1993) (holding that a district court remanding a case pursuant to “sentence
four” of the Social Security Act must enter judgment either affirming, reversing or modifying the
administrative decision, and may not retain jurisdiction over administrative proceedings on
remand).
The Clerk shall enter final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and
close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
ELI RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2
Case 3:21-cv-00360 Document 29 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 748