Fudge v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

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

MARJORIE ELAINE FUDGE

§
§
V.
§
§
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
§
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
§
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION §

A-16-CV-908-AWA

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND
After consideration of Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse with Remand and Enter
Judgment (Dkt. No. 19), 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.
The Court finds that a sentence four remand under § 405(g) is appropriate in this case in
order to ensure that the Commissioner properly considers Plaintiff’s claim of disability. See Buckner
v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2000) (finding that district court’s remand should have been
pursuant to sentence four, where purpose of the remand was to prompt additional fact finding and
further evaluation of the existing facts); Morris v. Apfel, 14 F. Supp.2d 1134, 1135 (D. Neb. 1998)
(sentence four remand appropriate where government conceded that remand was necessary to ensure
proper consideration of plaintiff’s claim, and where Appeals Council failed to address certain
medical evidence). On remand, an ALJ will evaluate the onset, severity, and limiting effects of
Plaintiff’s mental impairments, with particular attention to the medical opinion evidence regarding
these issues.

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 9th day of February, 2017.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2