Tassen v. Berryhill

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION granting Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Judgment on thePleadings, to the extent that it requests reversal and remand; grantingDefendant's 12 Motion to Remand; reversing the final decision of the Commissioner; remanding thi s matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with this opinion; and dismissing this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 10/17/2017. (cc: counsel of record) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION
REGINA D. TASSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-02773

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action seeking review of the decision of the 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 plaintiff’s
motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking reversal and remand of the
Commissioner’s decision, and the defendant’s motion to remand. (ECF Nos. 11, 12). Both
parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate Judge.
(ECF Nos. 13). The court has fully considered the representations and arguments of
counsel and GRANTS both motions. 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.

1

Plaintiff, Regina D. Tassen (“Claimant”), completed applications for DIB and SSI
in February 2014, alleging a disability onset date of June 1, 2013, (Tr. at 18), due to chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, glaucoma, depression, and high blood pressure.
(Tr. at 111). The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denied the application initially
and upon reconsideration. (Tr. at 18). Claimant filed a request for a hearing, which was
held on October 18, 2016 before the Honorable Robert B. Bowling, Administrative Law
Judge (“ALJ”). (Id.). By written decision dated November 15, 2016, the ALJ determined
that Claimant was not entitled to benefits. (Tr. at 18-28). The ALJ’s decision became the
final decision of the Commissioner on March 31, 2017, when the Appeals Council denied
Claimant’s request for review. (Tr. at 7-10).
On May 5, 2017, Claimant 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 August 18, 2017.
(ECF Nos. 9, 10). Thereafter, Claimant filed a brief in support of her request for a reversal
and remand of the Commissioner’s decision. (ECF No. 11). Claimant asserted that reversal
and remand were appropriate, because the ALJ had committed three errors, which
prevented the Commissioner’s final decision from being supported by substantial
evidence. In particular, Claimant contended that (1) the ALJ improperly rejected the
opinion of a consulting psychologist; (2) the ALJ erred by disregarding a vocational
expert’s testimony regarding Claimant’s inability to work; and (3) the ALJ’s RFC finding
was incorrect, which resulted in Claimant being denied benefits that should have been
awarded to her under the Medical Vocational Guidelines. (Id.). In addition, Claimant
argued that a subsequent award of benefits constituted new and material evidence that
justified reversal and remand. (Id.). On October 16, 2017, the Commissioner filed a
2

motion for remand, acknowledging that the ALJ’s decision denying benefits merited
further consideration. (ECF No. 13).
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.
2005).
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.
3

Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 892 (1989)).
Given that Claimant moved this court to reverse and remand the decision of the
Commissioner, then filed a brief in support of that position, and the Commissioner
ultimately agreed to a remand without contesting any of the arguments raised by
Claimant, the court concludes that Claimant is entitled to reversal and remand of the
Commissioner’s decision on the grounds asserted in her brief. Moreover, the court notes
that in her motion to remand, the Commissioner asks for a sentence four remand;
thereby, implicitly conceding termination of the judicial proceeding in Claimant’s favor.
Accordingly, the court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings, to the extent that it requests reversal and remand, (ECF No. 11); GRANTS
Defendant’s 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)
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 Court is directed to transmit copies of this Memorandum Opinion to
counsel of record.
ENTERED: October 17, 2017

4