From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Apfel

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Nov 7, 2001
Civil Action 00-0397-BH-M (S.D. Ala. Nov. 7, 2001)

Opinion

Civil Action 00-0397-BH-M

November 7, 2001


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) and 1383(c), Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security ruling which denied a claim for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income (Doc. 1). Defendant has filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment Under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) with Remand of the Cause to the Defendant (Doc. 13). Defendant has stated that Plaintiff's attorney has no objection to the motion (Doc. 13, p. 2).

The Court notes that Plaintiff also filed a "Motion for Remand to Allow the Plaintiff to File a Brief with the Social Security Appeals Council" (Doc. 10). In light of Defendant's Motion for Remand, Plaintiff's Motion is MOOT.

Defendant states that the Social Security Administration needs to refer the action back to an Administrative Law Judge

to conduct further administrative proceedings, including the. opportunity to reevaluate the credibility of claimant's subjective complaints; further determine claimant's physical residual functional capacity; provide claimant with a supplemental hearing, if necessary, as determined by the results of the above reevaluations; and permit claimant the opportunity to provide supplemental evidence.

(Doc. 13, p. 2). This is a tacit admission that Plaintiff's application was not appropriately considered and that this action should be reversed. Without reviewing the substantive evidence of record, this Court accepts Defendant's acknowledgment of error.

It appears to the Court that the decision of the Secretary should be reversed and remanded. Such remand comes under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). For further procedures not inconsistent with this report, see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993).

Therefore, it is recommended, without objection from Plaintiff, that Defendant's motion to remand under sentence four be granted, that the Court enter a judgment reversing the decision of the Commissioner, and that this action be reversed and remanded to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings not inconsistent with the orders of this Court.


Summaries of

Brown v. Apfel

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
Nov 7, 2001
Civil Action 00-0397-BH-M (S.D. Ala. Nov. 7, 2001)
Case details for

Brown v. Apfel

Case Details

Full title:LEROY BROWN, Plaintiff, KENNETH S. APFEL, Acting Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

Date published: Nov 7, 2001

Citations

Civil Action 00-0397-BH-M (S.D. Ala. Nov. 7, 2001)