Williams v. Saul, 1:19-cv-00192-FDW. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20191224a90
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 23, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2019
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Remand to the Commissioner (Doc. No. 9) for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner wishes to conduct further fact finding, including holding a new hearing before a different administrative law judge (ALJ). Plaintiff's counsel consents to the Government's Motion for Remand. The Court finds good cause has been alleged for remand and that further administrative fact-finding
Summary: ORDER FRANK D. WHITNEY , Chief District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Remand to the Commissioner (Doc. No. 9) for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner wishes to conduct further fact finding, including holding a new hearing before a different administrative law judge (ALJ). Plaintiff's counsel consents to the Government's Motion for Remand. The Court finds good cause has been alleged for remand and that further administrative fact-finding i..
More
ORDER
FRANK D. WHITNEY, Chief District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Remand to the Commissioner (Doc. No. 9) for further administrative proceedings. The Commissioner wishes to conduct further fact finding, including holding a new hearing before a different administrative law judge (ALJ). Plaintiff's counsel consents to the Government's Motion for Remand.
The Court finds good cause has been alleged for remand and that further administrative fact-finding is warranted. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Consent Motion for Remand (Doc. No. 9), REVERSES the Commissioner's decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and REMANDS the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings, including a new hearing before a different ALJ. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991).
Because the Court is granting the Consent Motion for Remand, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 7) is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully DIRECTED to enter a separate judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
