Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ragsdale v. Berryhill, 1-18-CV-00440-AWA. (2018)

Court: District Court, W.D. Texas Number: infdco20181220f28 Visitors: 3
Filed: Dec. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND ANDREW W. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . After consideration of Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand and Enter Judgment (Dkt. No. 20), the Court finds that the Motion is well-taken and should be granted. Therefore, the Court ORDERS the above-captioned matter REVERSED and REMANDED under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of conducting further administrative proceedings. The
More

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF REMAND

After consideration of Defendant's Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand and Enter Judgment (Dkt. No. 20), the Court finds that the Motion is well-taken and should be granted. Therefore, the Court ORDERS the above-captioned matter REVERSED and REMANDED under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security for the purpose of conducting further administrative proceedings.

The Court finds that a sentence four remand under § 405(g) is appropriate in this case in order to ensure that the Commissioner properly considers Plaintiff's claim of disability. See Buckner v. Apfel, 213 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2000) (finding that district court's remand should have been pursuant to sentence four, where purpose of the remand was to prompt additional fact finding and further evaluation of the existing facts); Morris v. Apfel, 14 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1135 (D. Neb. 1998) (sentence four remand appropriate where government conceded that remand was necessary to ensure proper consideration of plaintiff's claim, and where Appeals Council failed to address certain medical evidence).

A district court remanding a case pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) must enter judgment in the case, and may not retain jurisdiction over the administrative proceedings on remand. Shalala v. Shaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 (1993); Istre v. Apfel, 208 F.3d 517, 520-521 (5th Cir. 2000) (a sentence four remand must include a substantive ruling affirming, modifying or reversing the Secretary's decision). Therefore, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk ENTER JUDGMENT in this case on behalf of the Plaintiff and that the Clerk's Office CLOSE this cause of action. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer