Laverne McClish v. Colvin

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (td)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

JOHN LAVERNE MCCLISH

§
§
V.
§
§
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
§
COMMISSIONER OF THE
§
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION §

A-14-CV-1047-AWA

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND
After consideration of Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse with Remand and Enter
Judgment (Dkt. No. 18), the Court finds that the Motion is well-taken and should be granted.
Therefore, the Court, ORDERS the above-captioned matter REVERSED and REMANDED under
the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose
of conducting further administrative proceedings.
On remand, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will reconsider step five of the sequential
evaluation process, including whether McClish has transferable skills. The ALJ did not consider that
McClish attained age 55 and “advanced-age” status in September 2010, or how McClish’s
advanced-age status affected a step five decision (Tr. 8-18, 58, 73, 210, 217). See 20 C.F.R. §§
404.1563(e), 416.963(e) (explaining that advanced age significantly affects a person’s ability to
adjust to other work). Therefore, upon remand, an ALJ will consider McClish’s advanced age, and
obtain supplemental vocational expert testimony to determine whether McClish has transferable job
skills. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1568(d)(4), 416.968(d)(4)(explaining that if a claimant is “of advanced
age” and limited to no more than light work, “we will find that you cannot make an adjustment to
other work unless you have skills that you can transfer to other skilled or semiskilled work,” or “you

have recently completed education which provides for direct entry into skilled work”); SSR 82-41,
1982 WL 31389, at *7 (“When the issue of skills and their transferability must be decided, the
adjudicator orALJ is required to make certain findings of fact and include them in the written
decision”).
A district court remanding a case pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) must enter judgment
in the case, and may not retain jurisdiction over the administrative proceedings on remand. Shalala
v. Shaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 (1993); Istre v. Apfel, 208 F.3d 517, 520-521 (5th Cir. 2000) (a
sentence four remand must include a substantive ruling affirming, modifying or reversing the
Secretary’s decision). Therefore, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk ENTER JUDGMENT
in this case on behalf of the Plaintiff and that the Clerk’s Office CLOSE this cause of action.
SIGNED this 6th day of August, 2015.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2