From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Raines v. Apfel

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Oct 27, 2000
No. CA 00-0122-CB-C (S.D. Ala. Oct. 27, 2000)

Opinion

No. CA 00-0122-CB-C

October 27, 2000

Margaret A. Stone, Esq., P.O. Box 1084, Mobile, AL 36633

Patricia Nicole Beyer, Esq., U.S. Attorney's Office, 63 S. Royal St., Rm. 600, Mobile, AL 36602


JUDGMENT


In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying claimant benefits be reversed and this cause is hereby remanded to the Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), for further proceedings. The remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and terminates this Court's jurisdiction over this matter.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and dated September 26, 2000 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Commissioner has moved for entry of judgment under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) with remand of this cause for further proceedings. (Doc. 13) The Commissioner proposes a remand to allow the Administrative Law Judge to (1) further consider the severity of the medically determinable mental impairments and obtain a mental status consultative examination of the claimant; (2) re-evaluate Dr. John Goff's diagnoses; (3) further evaluate the credibility of claimant's subjective complaints in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 (c) and SSR 96-7p; and (4) conduct a supplemental hearing with a vocational expert in attendance to consider an appropriate hypothetical. ( Id. at 1-2)

The motion to remand reveals that counsel for the defendant, Patricia N. Beyer, Esquire, notified plaintiffs' counsel, Margaret A. Stone, Esquire, of the contents of the motion and was advised by Ms. Stone that the plaintiff would interpose no objection to the motion to remand. ( Id.)

In light of the foregoing, and the plain language of sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) empowering this Court "to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, with or without remanding the cause for a rehearing[,]" the Magistrate Judge recommends that this cause be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991), for further proceedings. The remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and terminates this Court's jurisdiction over this matter.

Oral argument in this case, presently scheduled for October 4, 2000 (Doc. 12), is CANCELED.


Summaries of

Raines v. Apfel

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Oct 27, 2000
No. CA 00-0122-CB-C (S.D. Ala. Oct. 27, 2000)
Case details for

Raines v. Apfel

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM RAINES, Plaintiff v. KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social…

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

Date published: Oct 27, 2000

Citations

No. CA 00-0122-CB-C (S.D. Ala. Oct. 27, 2000)