Opinion
No. CV-09-0078-JPH.
May 26, 2009
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SENTENCE SIX REMAND (Ct. Rec. 9)
On May 21, 2009, defendant filed a motion for remand of this case pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ( Ct. Rec. 9). The parties have filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. (Ct. Rec. 8).
Defendant is correct that the cited provision allows the court, on motion of the Commissioner for good cause shown and before filing an answer, to remand the case to the Commissioner for further action by the Commissioner. In sentence six remands, the court retains jurisdiction over the action pending further administrative development of the record. The Commissioner asserts the recording of an administrative hearing on June 8, 2008, cannot be located. (Ct. Rec. 10 at 2.) As noted by defendant, if the recording cannot be located, the Appeals Council will remand the case to the administrative law judge for a de novo hearing.
After considering the motion,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's motion for a sentence-six remand ( Ct. Rec. 9) is GRANTED. In the above-captioned case, defendant will continue attempting to locate the recording of the June 8, 2008, administrative hearing. If the record cannot be located by July 31, 2009,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appeals Council remand the case to an Administrative Law Judge to conduct a de novo hearing. The Court will retain jurisdiction over the case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the de novo hearing is unfavorable to plaintiff, he may seek judicial review by reinstating this case rather than by filing a new complaint.
This remand is pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), prior to defendant filing his answer and for good cause shown.
IT IS SO ORDERED.