Francke v. Colvin

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 4/20/2017: GRANTING 13 Commissioner's Motion to Remand; REMANDING the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to Sentence Four of Section 205 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and DENYING AS MOOT 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment. (cc: all counsel) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JULIE ANN FRANCKE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-CV-1611-JPS

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

ORDER
Defendant.
The plaintiff, Julie Ann Francke, filed this action complaining that the
administrative law judge (the “ALJ”) evaluating her claim for disability
insurance benefits (“DIB”) had erred in denying those benefits. (Docket #1).
The Court directed the parties to meet and confer in a good faith effort to
resolve the matter, (Docket #8 at 1), the result of which was a determination
by both parties that the ALJ had, in fact, erred and that the case must be
remanded. (See Docket #14 at 2, #15-2 at 7). The parties were unable to reach
an agreement on a joint stipulation for remand, though, because they
disagree about whether this Court should require a de novo hearing on
remand.
The Commissioner filed a motion to remand, “pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),” to allow the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) “to reevaluate the record evidence, including the record opinions and
Francke’s subjective complaints of symptoms.” (Docket #14 at 2).

If

necessary, the ALJ “will reassess Francke’s residual function capacity” and
“obtain supplemental vocational evidence.” Id. According to the
Commissioner, “a de novo hearing is not required in this case because
Francke’s date last insured was December 31, 2014, and the record contains
sufficient evidence to assess Francke’s residual functional capacity as of that

date.” Id. According to the HALLEX manual—a publication of the SSA with
guidelines regarding the Social Security Disability appeals process—ALJs are
not required to hold a hearing for DIB claims “when the period at issue
expired before the date of the hearing decision.” HALLEX II-5-1-3. In this
case, the ALJ held a hearing on May 11, 2015, and issued a written decision
on September 2, 2015. (Docket #14 at 1.)
The Court will not require a de novo hearing on remand. Simply put,
the Commissioner and the SSA are in the best position, on remand, to
determine what course of action is necessary to comply with the dictates of
the governing regulations, statutes, and Constitutional provisions. The Court
does not wish to interfere with that process by dictating that the SSA conduct
additional procedures, which may, ultimately, prove unnecessary. As is the
Court’s practice in most cases involving a remand to the SSA, the Court will
order that the ALJ issue a new decision consistent with all applicable rules
and regulations as interpreted in relevant Seventh Circuit case law. While this
does not guarantee the correct outcome, at least it will allow the ALJ to act
in accordance with the Seventh Circuit’s dictates. See SSR 96-1p. And if the
ALJ were to deny her benefits again in error, the plaintiff would, of course,
be able to appeal that denial.
For these reasons, the Court determines that the best course of action
is to grant the Commissioner’s motion to remand this case without requiring
a de novo hearing.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion to remand the case
(Docket #13) be and the same is hereby GRANTED; this matter be and the
same is hereby REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social Security

Page 2 of 3

pursuant to Sentence Four of Section 205 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on remand, the ALJ shall issue a
new decision consistent with all applicable rules and regulations as
interpreted in relevant Seventh Circuit case law; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a
motion for summary judgment (Docket #15) be and the same is hereby
DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 20th day of April, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3