Opinion
Civil Action 00-0434-AH-M
December 19, 2000
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff seeks judicial review of an adverse social security ruling which denied a claim for disability insurance benefits (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. 2).
Defendant states that the Social Security Administration needs to refer the action back to an Administrative Law Judge
to further evaluate Plaintiff's subjective allegations of pain and further consider the effect of Plaintiff's non-exertional limitations on her residual functional capacity. The AU should also provide Plaintiff with the opportunity for a supplemental hearing with vocational expert testimony and perform further development and analysis if necessary.
(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.