Opinion
CIVIL ACTION 00-0652-CB-M.
March 20, 2001.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3), Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security ruling which denied a claim for 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. 17). Defendant has stated that Plaintiff's attorney has no objection to the motion (Doc. 17, p. 1).
Defendant states that
remand would be appropriate to provide the administrative law judge (ALJ) the opportunity 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; give further consideration to whether claimant has performed past relevant work; order a consultative examination to determine the progression of claimant's glaucoma; and permit claimant the opportunity to provide supplemental evidence.
(Doc. 17, pp. 1-2). 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.