" Such a result would not be "humane" or "understandable." See also Colella v. Heckler, 604 F. Supp. 593 (E.D.Pa. 1985); Claassen v. Heckler, 600 F. Supp. 1507 (D.Kansas 1985). The Secretary argues that Stewart v. Heckler should be distinguished because the court in that case had already applied the relevant medical improvement standard so that remand to the Secretary would result in redundant litigation.
However, in cases where the Secretary's prior decision included a determination of whether there has been a medical improvement, other courts have declined to remand the case to the Secretary. See Sebion v. Heckler, 757 F.2d 960 (8th Cir. 1985) (remand not necessary in view of the fact that the ALJ adequately considered all evidence that is required under the new Act); Colella v. Heckler, 604 F. Supp. 593 (D.C.Pa. 1985) (refusal to remand upon Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration where Secretary's termination of benefits included a consideration of whether claimant's condition had improved medically); Claassen v. Heckler, 600 F. Supp. 1507 (D.C.Kan. 1985) (no useful purpose served by remanding case under new law where that standard is more beneficial to plaintiff than previous standard already applied). W.C.'s individual case has previously been remanded to the Secretary pursuant to the medical improvement standard of the amended preliminary injunction in Morrison, et. al. v. Heckler, 582 F. Supp. 321 (W.D.Wash.