Opinion
No. 01-CV-72427-DT.
May 29, 2002.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Steven D. Pepe's Report and Recommendation dated April 30, 2002. To date, no Objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation.
Judicial review of the Commissioner's decision is limited in scope to determining whether the findings of fact made by the Commissioner are supported by substantial evidence, and deciding whether the Commissioner employed the proper legal criteria in reaching his conclusion. Gamer v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). The credibility findings of an administrative law judge ("ALJ") must not be discarded lightly and should be accorded great deference. Hardaway v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 823 F.2d 922, 928 (6th Cir. 1987). A district court's review of an ALJ's decision is not a de novo review. The district court may not resolve conflicts in the evidence nor decide questions of credibility. Garner, 745 F.2d at 397. The decision of the Commissioner must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence, even if the record might support a contrary decision. Smith v. Secretary of HHS, 893 F.2d 106, 108 (6th Cir. 1989). An administrative decision must be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence, even if the Court might arrive at a different conclusion. Mullen v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting Baker v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir. 1984)).
The Court has had an opportunity to review this matter and finds that the Magistrate Judge reached the correct conclusion for the proper reasons. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the matter should be remanded for further findings by the ALJ, specifically, completion of the PRTF as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a. The Court notes that the Supreme Court only recognizes two kinds of remands involving social security cases — those pursuant to sentence four and those pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 99 (1991); Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617, 626 (1990). The Supreme Court concluded that Congress's explicit delineation in § 405(g) regarding circumstances under which remands are authorized clearly showed that Congress intended to limit the district court's authority to enter remand orders in these two types of cases. Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 100. Sentence four allows a district court to remand in conjunction with a judgment affirming, modifying or reversing the Commissioner's decision. Id. at 99-100. Sentence six allows the district court to remand in light of additional evidence without making any substantive ruling as to the merits of the Commissioner's decision, but only upon a showing that there is new evidence which is material and that there is good cause for the failure to incorporate such evidence into the record in a prior proceeding. Id. at 100. The Sixth Circuit has long recognized that a court may only remand disability benefits cases when a claimant establishes that new material evidence is available and shows good cause for failure to incorporate such evidence into prior proceedings. Willis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 727 F.2d 551 (6th Cir. 1984).
Remand is appropriate in this case because the ALJ applied an erroneous principle of law by failing to consider certain evidence, especially since the regulations set forth a special procedure which must be followed when evaluating a mental impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a; Henderson v. Apfel, 142 F. Supp.2d 943 (W.D. Tenn. 2001); Bailey v. Commissioner of Social Security, 173 F.3d 428, 1999 WL 96920, **5 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 1999) (unpublished). Because the Court is not reviewing the substantive merits of this case at this time, under § 405(g), sentence six, a judgment is not required. Schaefer v. Shalala, 509 U.S. 292, 301 (1993).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Pepe dated April 30, 2002 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court's findings and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ( Docket No. 7, filed November 9, 2001) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment ( Docket No. 9, filed December 10, 2001) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Extend Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment Instanter ( Docket No. 8, filed December 6, 2001) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED back to the Commissioner for further proceedings and findings consistent with this Order and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. After a hearing and additional findings have been made, either party may move to reopen this action, and the Secretary shall thereafter file with the Court any additional evidence and findings and decision, including any additional record pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The matter will then be referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on the additional findings, if any. The Court will then issue its decision and Judgment on the matter.