Copley v. Saul
MEMORANDUM OPINION granting 12 UNOPPOSED MOTION by Andrew Saul to Remand Case to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration; the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED and this action is REMANDED; this action is DISMISSED from the docket of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 7/15/2021. (cc: counsel of record) (kew)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CATHY A. COPLEY,
Case No.: 2:21-cv-00116
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration (hereinafter the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiff’s
applications for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and
supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433, 1381-1383f. The case is presently before the court on the
Commissioner’s Uncontested Motion for Remand. (ECF No. 12). Both parties have
consented in writing to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No.
13). The court has fully considered the Motion for Remand and GRANTS same.
Accordingly, the court finds that the decision of the Commissioner should be
REVERSED and REMANDED, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for
further evaluation of Plaintiff’s application as stated herein.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Acting Commissioner, Kilolo Kijakazi, is substituted for the former
Commissioner, Andrew Saul.
Plaintiff, Cathy A. Copley (hereinafter “Claimant”), completed applications for
DIB and SSI on December 6, 2018, and December 19, 2018, respectively, alleging a
disability onset date of October 15, 2017, (Tr. at 241-53). The Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) denied the applications initially and upon reconsideration. (Tr.
at 10). Claimant filed a request for a hearing, which was held on October 6, 2020, before
the Honorable M. Drew Crislip, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). (Tr. at 32-50). By
written decision dated November 17, 2020, the ALJ determined that Claimant was not
entitled to benefits. (Tr. at 10-20). The ALJ’s decision became the final decision of the
Commissioner on December 21, 2020, when the Appeals Council denied Claimant’s
request for review. (Tr. at 1-5).
On February 16, 2021, Claimant timely filed the present civil action seeking judicial
review of the administrative decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 2). The
Commissioner filed an Answer and a Transcript of the Proceedings on May 14, 2021. (ECF
Nos. 7, 8). On June 9, 2021, Claimant filed a Brief in Support of a Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 9). Thereafter, on July 13, 2021, the Commissioner filed an
uncontested motion for remand, indicating that the ALJ’s decision denying benefits
merited further evaluation, including an opportunity for a hearing and to take any further
action needed to complete the administrative record. (ECF No. 12). According to the
Commissioner, Claimant concurred that further proceedings would be beneficial.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) authorizes the district court to remand the decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security for further consideration at different stages of the
judicial proceedings. When the Commissioner requests remand prior to filing an answer
to the plaintiff’s complaint, the presiding court may grant the request under sentence six
of § 405(g), upon a showing of good cause. In addition, a court may remand the matter
“at any time” under sentence six to allow “additional evidence to be taken before the
Commissioner of Social Security, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence
which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence
into the record in a prior proceeding.” 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). When a court remands the
Commissioner’s decision under sentence six, the court retains jurisdiction over the
matter, but “closes it and regards it as inactive” until additional or modified findings are
supplied to the court. See McPeak v. Barnhart, 388 F.Supp.2d 742, 745 n.2. (S.D.W. Va.
In contrast, under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), “[t]he court shall have
power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming,
modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or
without remanding the cause for a rehearing.” Because a sentence four remand essentially
“terminates the litigation with victory for the plaintiff,” the court enters a final judgment
dismissing the case and removing it from the court’s docket. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S.
292, 299 (1993) (“Under § 405(g), ‘each final decision of the Secretary [is] reviewable by
a separate piece of litigation,” and a sentence-four remand order ‘terminate[s] the civil
action’ seeking judicial review of the Secretary's final decision.”) (quoting in Sullivan v.
Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 892 (1989).
Given that the Commissioner explicitly asks for a sentence four remand,2 the court
GRANTS the motion to remand, (ECF No. 12); REVERSES the final decision of the
Commissioner; REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
2 Furthermore, this case does not present either of the factual scenarios that would typically support a
sentence six remand. The Commissioner’s motion was not made until after the answer was filed, and
neither party has, at this time, offered new evidence that was not previously made a part of the record.
for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion; and DISMISSES
this action from the docket of the Court. A Judgment Order will be entered accordingly.
The Clerk of this Court is directed to transmit copies of this Memorandum Opinion
to counsel of record.
ENTERED: July 15, 2021
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?