ORDER THAT: (1) THIS MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER UNDER THE FOURTH SENTENCE OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); AND (2) THIS CASE SHALL BE CLOSED IN THIS COURT

TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.

This civil action, an appeal of a Social Security matter, is before the Court on Defendant's motion for voluntary remand (Doc. 12), and the parties' responsive memoranda (Docs. 14, 15).

Defendant moves the Court to order remand of this case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and to enter judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Plaintiff maintains that the case should be remanded with instructions that his benefits be immediately reinstated, arguing that: (1) no reasonable application of Drummond and res judicata could result in a finding that he does not merit reinstatement of his disability benefits; and (2) the record supports a finding of disability.

Plaintiff was awarded benefits in 1996 by the state disability determination agency. (PageID 205). Those benefits were later terminated in 2008 when he was incarcerated. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.211(a) ("[Y]ou are not eligible for SSI benefits for any month throughout which you are resident of a public institution.").

First, Plaintiff claims that Drummond requires reinstatement of his benefits. In Drummond, the Sixth Circuit held that Social Security claimants and the Commissioner are barred from re-litigating issues that have previously been determined at the administrative level. Drummond v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 126 F.3d 837, 841 (6th Cir. 1997). Drummond mandates that, absent evidence that a claimant's condition has improved, findings issued by an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") as part of a prior disability determination are binding on an ALJ in subsequent proceedings. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.905). The Sixth Circuit explained in Drummond that "res judicata applies in an administrative law context following a trial type hearing." Id. Here, Plaintiff was awarded benefits by the state agency in 1996, but he did not have a hearing in front of an ALJ. Therefore, Plaintiff's reliance on Drummond is misplaced and res judicata does not apply. See, e.g., Roark v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:10cv739, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148016, at *8-9 (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 29, 2011) (M.J. Litkovitz) (where Plaintiff was awarded benefits without a hearing and later incarcerated, the learned Magistrate Judge found that "[t]he prior disability determination is of no consequence, and Drummond's holding therefore has no applicability here.").1

Next, Plaintiff argues that he should be awarded benefits because there is strong evidence of disability in the record. However, not all essential factual issues have been resolved. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). For example, the Commissioner acknowledges that the ALJ's decision fails to adequately analyze Plaintiff's subjective complaints. Accordingly, remand is proper.

On remand, the Appeals Council will vacate the ALJ's decision, and remand the matter to an ALJ for a new hearing and a new decision, with instruction to the ALJ to further evaluate Plaintiff's subjective complaints and provide rationale in accordance with the disability regulations pertaining to an evaluation of Plaintiff's symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. Based on this assessment, the ALJ should then give further consideration to Plaintiff's maximum residual functional capacity during the period at issue and give specific references to evidence of record in support of the assessed limitations in accordance with SSR 96-8p. The ALJ shall determine anew whether Plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, and this case shall be closed in this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.