MEMORANDUM and ORDER

CLIFFORD J. PROUD, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is now before the Court on the parties' Joint Motion to Remand to the Commissioner. (Doc. 25).

The parties agree that this case should be remanded to the agency for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). A sentence four remand (as opposed to a sentence six remand) depends upon a finding of error, and is itself a final, appealable order. See, Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991); Perlman v. Swiss Bank Corporation Comprehensive Disability Protection Plan, 195 F.3d 975, 978 (7th Cir. 1999). Upon a sentence four remand, judgment should be entered in favor of plaintiff. Schaefer v. Shalala, 509 U.S. 292, 302-303 (1993).

The parties agree that, on remand, the Appeals Council will hold a new hearing for the purposes of obtaining supplemental vocational expert evidence in response to hypothetical questions that fully inform the vocational expert of all the information stated in the opinion of state psychological consultant Dr. Difonso. The ALJ will reconsider the medical opinions of record regarding plaintiff's physical limitations, explain the basis for any RFC, and reassess plaintiff's subjective complaints. After reevaluating the evidence, the ALJ will issue a new decision regarding the disability application.

For good cause shown, the parties' Joint Motion to Remand (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.

The final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Billy Huffstutler's application for social security benefits is REVERSED and REMANDED to the Commissioner for rehearing and reconsideration of the evidence, pursuant to four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.